Right to counsel
While a state may have many statutes, court decisions, or court rules governing
appointment of counsel for a particular subject area, a "Key Development" is a
statute/decision/rule that prevails over the others (example: a state high court
decision finding a categorical right to counsel in guardianships cases takes
precedence over a statute saying appointment in guardianship cases is
discretionary).
Litigation, Civil Commitment
A federal court held that in Michigan civil commitment cases, “the respondent has the right to legal counsel and, if indigent, to appointed counsel, to assist him at every step of the commitment proceedings; and further that he must be notified of this right at the outset of the proceedings. Bell v. Wayne Cty. Gen. Hosp. At Eloise, 384 F. Supp. 1085, 109 (E.D. Mich. 1974). The court relied on In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) (finding right to counsel for juveniles in delinquency proceedings) as well as decisions from other federal courts.
If "yes",
the established right to counsel or
discretionary appointment of counsel
is
limited
in some way, including any of: the only authority
is a
lower/intermediate court decision or a city council,
not a high court or state legislature; there
has been
a subsequent case that
has
cast doubt; a statute
is
ambiguous; or the right or discretionary appointment
is not
for all types of individuals or proceedings
within that category.
categorical
no
