LAW DAY 2012
No Courts
• No Justice • No Freedom
High School Lesson
Moot Supreme Court Challenge: When Must a State Appoint Counsel
Overview
Students will participate in a moot appellate court argument dealing with the fictional case of Lee Richardson v. Lincoln. The fact
pattern involves a challenge to a state law that restricts when counsel is appointed for criminal defendants. This moot court experience
will provide students with an understanding of how the adversarial court system works, how the courts review the constitutionality of
legislation, and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Objectives of Mock Trials
Through participation in the mock trials, students gain
• an insider’s perspective on courtroom procedures;
• a first-hand understanding of the appointment of counsel and the constitutional
and ethical issues associated with it;
• critical analysis of problems;
• strategic thinking skills;
• questioning skills;
• listening skills;
• oral presentation and extemporaneous argument skills;
• preparation and organizational skills.
Preparation
Download the Moot
Supreme Court Argument,
Lee Richardson v. Lincoln
State, and Historical
Cases and Supporting
Documents handouts at
www.lawday.org.
Procedure
1. Review of moot Supreme Court argument. Distribute the Moot Supreme Court argument handout to students. Give them time to
read it. Discuss with students that this is an appellate court argument; the trial has occurred and the defendant was convicted and is
now challenging a legal rule applied during his trial. Explain the process of a supreme court/appellate court hearing, including that:
• Unlike trials, appellate cases use no witnesses
• Attorneys will make timed arguments to the panel of judges challenging or supporting a law
• Judges are free to interrupt or question attorneys about their arguments
• The side challenging the law will go first and the side supporting the state will go second
2. Review Lincoln state facts. Distribute Lincoln State fact pattern and case histories.
3. Assign students roles. Depending on how many students are in the class, split the students into three groups: attorneys for Lincoln
State, attorneys for Lee Richardson, and judges.
4. Students work in their assigned groups. Students can work during class or outside of class as appropriate to prepare the argument.
During this time, attorneys should outline their arguments by identifying those facts and cases that support their view. Student attorneys should also brainstorm questions the judges might have for them and determine what their answers will be.
During preparation, judges should explore questions about the law and historical developments of the legal issues at play. Judges
should expect to question the attorneys during their arguments.
Once all the preparation has been completed, convert the classroom by rearranging enough chairs at the front of the room for the
judges.
5. Conduct the Supreme Court argument. The lawyers for Lee Richardson should go first and get a set amount of time (to be determined based on class periods); the attorneys for the state will then get the same amount of time. Each side will then follow with 1–3
minutes for rebuttal (again, depending on available class time).
Once arguments have been completed, the judges should deliberate publicly in front of the class. Each judge should give his or her
decision and reasons.
6. Debriefing. Ask students to spend 15 minutes (or as a homework assignment as appropriate) to draft a two paragraph explanation
for how they would have voted in this case and why.
LAW DAY 2012
No Courts
• No Justice • No Freedom
Conducting Moot Supreme Court Argument—
Appointing Counsel
You and your classmates will be asked to conduct a moot Supreme Court argument challenging
a law restricting when lawyers are appointed for people of modest income.
Your teacher will assign your role and you will work together with a team to prepare the
necessary arguments and questions. As you read through the fact patterns and supporting case
histories and documents, look for those facts and statements that will support your role, but
also keep an eye out for those that will contradict your position.
Understanding your role. You will likely be assigned one of the following roles: attorney for
Lee Richardson, attorney for Lincoln state, or judge. If you are an attorney for Lee Richardson,
you will be presenting arguments as to why the Lincoln law is unconstitutional. If you are an
attorney for Lincoln state, you will be arguing that the new law is constitutional and should
remain in place. If you are a judge, you will need to listen carefully during arguments and ask
appropriate questions to reach a logical decision.
Working with your group. You will work during class and outside of class in order to prepare
for the argument.
Conducting the trial. Your teacher will outline the structure of the trial and set any time limits.
Listen closely for important additional instructions that may impact how the trial is conducted.
Lee Richardson v. Lincoln State
Issue
Does the Lincoln law restricting when an attorney will be appointed for a criminal defendant
violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Facts
Lee Richardson was accused of armed robbery in 2010. In Lincoln, the maximum penalty for
armed robbery is 5 years in jail. Lee asked his trial court judge to appointment an attorney on
the basis that he couldn’t afford one on his own. Lee was unemployed at the time, collecting
$400 a month in unemployment (for an annual total of $4,800). Lee’s wife, Joan, worked parttime as a home health-care aide making approximately $13,000 a year. The Richardsons, who
have twin 5-year old boys, lived in a two bedroom apartment and had approximately $10,000
in savings due to an inheritance Joan received last year when her mother died. According
to the trial judge, between the Richardson’s income and savings, Lee was ineligible to have
counsel appointed under Lincoln law.
Since 1965, the state of Lincoln has had a law in place entitled The Appointment of Counsel
for Indigent Criminal Defendants. That law appointed an attorney for any criminal defendant charged with a crime for which he or she could face more than 4 months in jail and who
makes less than $25,000 a year.
Starting in 2009, Lincoln, like most states, has been facing a budget crisis. The state had to cut
a number of services, including closing mental health hospitals, laying off 10 percent of the
state’s teachers, and reducing the number of 911 operators in most counties. One of the budget
items Lincoln state legislators wanted to reduce was the cost of running the court system.
Lincoln courts are now only open 4 days a week and nonessential court staff has been reduced
by 5 percent. In addition, state legislators amended The Appointment of Counsel for Indigent
Criminal Defendants law. The current version of the law now provides for the appointment
of an attorney for those criminal defendants who may face more than 3 years in jail and who
have access to less than $25,000 total in assets. The new law defines “assets” as including
home, car, and savings accounts.
After the trial judge refused to appoint Lee a court-funded lawyer, Lee and his wife used their
savings to hire an attorney to defend Lee on the robbery charges. Their savings quickly ran
out and Lee went to trial without a lawyer. He was eventually found guilty and sentenced to
2.5 years in jail.
Lee now challenges the Lincoln appointment law as violating his constitutional rights under
the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Lee Richardson v. Lincoln State
Historical Cases and Supporting Documents
Historical Cases
1932
Powell v. Alabama
The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to legal counsel in capital cases
(involving the death penalty) and that this right applied not only in federal courts, but also to
the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
1938
Johnson v. Zerbst
The Sixth Amendment requires that lawyers be appointed in all federal cases for criminal
defendants too poor to hire their own.
1942
Betts v. Brady
The Court ruled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require the
provision in Johnson v. Zerbst be extended to state courts, except in cases where the defendant
demonstrates “special circumstances.”
1963
Gideon v. Wainwright
The Sixth Amendment requires that legal counsel must be provided to indigent (poor) criminal defendants in all felony cases in federal and state courts. The Court determined that this
Sixth Amendment right to counsel applied to the states through the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Its decision in Gideon supersedes the ruling in Betts. Since Gideon,
this requirement has been expanded to all criminal cases involving a jail sentence, including
serious misdemeanors.
Supporting Documents
Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by
an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence.
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.