Scott v. Illinois
Citation and Court
440 U.S. 367 (1979), Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Scott was convicted of shoplifting under an Illinois statute that allowed a fine of up to 50 but not imprisoned. He had not been provided counsel at trial and argued the conviction violated his Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel.
Issue
Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require a state to provide counsel to an indigent defendant in a criminal case whenever the offense charged carries the possibility of imprisonment, even if no imprisonment is actually imposed.
Holding
The Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel is triggered only when a defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment, not merely whenever the charged offense carries a potential jail term.
Rule / Doctrine
The “actual imprisonment” standard: the constitutional line is drawn at actual deprivation of liberty. When the state does not impose a sentence of imprisonment — even if it could have — there is no Sixth Amendment violation in failing to appoint counsel. The potential for imprisonment is not sufficient.
Significance
Scott sets the governing constitutional floor for the right to appointed counsel in misdemeanor proceedings. It is a significant limitation on Argersinger v. Hamlin (which required counsel whenever imprisonment is actually imposed) and defines the threshold for mandatory appointed counsel that still governs today.