Content deleted Content added
Wikipedialuva (talk | contribs) m +WL Public defender piping on court-appointed defense counsel |
Wikipedialuva (talk | contribs) m specifying Public defender (United States) in piping of last edit |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''Fuller v. Oregon''''', 417 U.S. 40 (1974), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the Court held that Oregon's statute allowing for the recoupment of costs related to [[Public defender|court-appointed defense counsel]] did not violate either the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]'s [[Equal Protection Clause]] or the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]]'s [[Assistance of Counsel Clause]]. The statute required convicted defendants who were indigent at the time of their trial, but later acquired financial means, to repay the costs of their court-appointed lawyer and investigator.<ref>{{ussc|name=Fuller v. Oregon|volume=417|page=40|year=1974}}.</ref> |
'''''Fuller v. Oregon''''', 417 U.S. 40 (1974), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case in which the Court held that Oregon's statute allowing for the recoupment of costs related to [[Public defender (United States)|court-appointed defense counsel]] did not violate either the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]'s [[Equal Protection Clause]] or the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]]'s [[Assistance of Counsel Clause]]. The statute required convicted defendants who were indigent at the time of their trial, but later acquired financial means, to repay the costs of their court-appointed lawyer and investigator.<ref>{{ussc|name=Fuller v. Oregon|volume=417|page=40|year=1974}}.</ref> |
||
== References == |
== References == |
Revision as of 07:21, 14 February 2024
Fuller v. Oregon | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued March 26, 1974 Decided May 20, 1974 | |
Full case name | Fuller v. Oregon |
Citations | 417 U.S. 40 (more) |
Holding | |
(1) The Oregon recoupment scheme does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (2) The Oregon law does not infringe upon a defendant's right to counsel, since the knowledge that he may ultimately have to repay the costs of legal services does not affect his ability to obtain such services. The challenged statute is thus not similar to a provision that "chill[s] the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them." | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Brennan, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist |
Concurrence | Douglas |
Dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. VI; U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Ore.Rev.Stat. § 161.665-161.685 |
Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Oregon's statute allowing for the recoupment of costs related to court-appointed defense counsel did not violate either the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause or the Sixth Amendment's Assistance of Counsel Clause. The statute required convicted defendants who were indigent at the time of their trial, but later acquired financial means, to repay the costs of their court-appointed lawyer and investigator.[1]
References
External links
- Text of Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (1974) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)