Powell v. Alabama

We recently went over an frq in class, involving a 6th amendment case between Strickland and Washington. While many might find the ruling of the case controversial due to its unique situation, a case seemingly more controversial is found in Powell v Alabama.

The case involved nine black men and two white women riding on an open-air freight train in Alabama. A fight broke out between the men in the car, which resulted in a report requesting their removal. When they were arrested, 2 of the females in the car allegedly reported that the men of the group sexually assaulted them. The males were eventually detained, and while they pleaded not guilty, they were judged guilty and given a death sentence. However, the events surrounding this case were extremely confusing. On the day of the trial, their assigned attorney was out of town, resulting in a new attorney being assigned the day of. The new attorney didn't have time to go over the incident, which could have arguably led the men to be convicted guilty. The race had most definitely played a factor in their conviction in that despite having evidence from a doctor that the women in question hadn't seen any signs of rape, they were still convicted guilty. The question brought up to the supreme court was whether or not assigning an attorney the day of violated their 6th amendment rights. The supreme court had ruled against them mainly because they still technically had an attorney representing them with him doing the best he could with the situation he had. The attorney in question could have done a better job if given more time, which he did not have. It seems that the supreme court thoroughly sticks to what is precisely stated in the 6th amendment, with little situational leeway. Even in Strickland v Washington, the attorney in question could have done a better job, but the supreme court ruled against the defendants because it didn't directly violate what was said in the 6th amendment.