Connection lost
Server error
Betts v. Brady Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An indigent defendant was denied appointed counsel in a state robbery trial. The Supreme Court held this did not violate due process, establishing that states must only provide counsel in non-capital cases under “special circumstances” where its absence would result in an unfair trial.
Legal Significance: The Court refused to incorporate the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel into the Fourteenth Amendment. It established the “special circumstances” or “fundamental fairness” test, requiring a case-by-case analysis to determine if the absence of counsel for an indigent defendant violated due process in state courts.
Betts v. Brady Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The petitioner, Betts, an indigent man, was indicted for robbery in a Maryland state court. At his arraignment, he informed the judge that he was unable to afford an attorney and requested that counsel be appointed for him. The trial judge denied the request, explaining that the local practice was to appoint counsel for indigent defendants only in prosecutions for murder and rape. Betts pleaded not guilty and conducted his own defense at a bench trial. He cross-examined the state’s witnesses and called his own witnesses to establish an alibi. The judge found him guilty and sentenced him to eight years in prison. Betts later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the state’s refusal to appoint counsel violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The state court denied the petition, finding that Betts was a man of ordinary intelligence who was not helpless in the proceedings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the constitutional question.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to furnish counsel to an indigent defendant in every non-capital criminal case, regardless of the particular circumstances?
No. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id es
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to furnish counsel to an indigent defendant in every non-capital criminal case, regardless of the particular circumstances?
Conclusion
Betts v. Brady established the "special circumstances" rule for the right to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Legal Rule
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim
Legal Analysis
Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, rejected the argument that the Sixth Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: The 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not require states