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 Contempt in Family Court
In Brooks v. United States, 686 A.2d 214 (D.C. 1996), the court held that contemnors could not be incarcerated without first being appointed counsel, even in summary contempt situations. The court relied on a host of decisions from federal and state courts, as well as the Supreme Court's decision in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), holding that "[a]pplying the Argersinger principle to civil and nonsummary criminal contempt reflects a recognition that 'any deprivation of liberty is a serious matter.'" 686 A.2d at 23. This decision is questionable after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Turner v. Rogers.
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
yes
