Search Supreme Court Cases

ADAMS V. ILLINOIS, 405 U. S. 278 (1972)

U.S. Supreme Court

Adams v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 278 (1972)

Adams v. Illinois

No. 70-5038

Argued December 7, 1971

Decided March 6, 1972

405 U.S. 278


Petitioner's pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment against him because of the court's failure to appoint counsel to represent him at the preliminary hearing in 1967 was denied, and petitioner was tried and convicted. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1, in which this Court held that a preliminary hearing is a critical stage of the criminal process at which the accused is constitutionally entitled to assistance of counsel, did not have retroactive application.

Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 405 U. S. 280-286.

46 Ill.2d 200, 263 N.E.2d 490, affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, joined by MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concluded that Coleman v. Alabama, supra, does not apply retroactively to preliminary hearings conducted before June 22, 1970, when Coleman was decided. Pp. 405 U. S. 281-285.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER concurred in the result, concluding, as set forth in his dissent in Coleman, that there is no constitutional requirement that counsel should be provided at preliminary hearings. Pp. 405 U. S. 285-286.

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN concurred in the result, concluding that Coleman was wrongly decided. P. 405 U. S. 286.

BRENNAN, J., announced the Court's judgment and delivered an opinion, in which STEWART and WHITE, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, post, p. 405 U. S. 285. BLACKMUN, J., filed a statement concurring in the result, post, p. 405 U. S. 286. DOUGLAS J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 405 U. S. 286. POWELL and REHNQUIST, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Page 405 U. S. 279

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: ADAMS V. ILLINOIS, 405 U. S. 278 (1972)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.