Epstein Secrets

the haydays of the Warren Court. Many dealt with the rights of indigent defendants—an issue that came to the fore in the Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon versus Weinright, decided toward the end of the year of my Bazelon clerkship. That decision ruled that every indigent criminal defendant in a serious

s large, sometimes small, in some of the most cataclysmic events of the last half century—from the assassination of JFK, to the forced resignation of Richard Nixon, to the Chappaquiddick investigation of Ted Kennedy, to the impeachment of President Clinton, to the war crimes trials of accused war criminals, to t

ates Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon 734 might be vitiated by a broad rule. To ensure

broadly permits the court in both civil and criminal cases to "request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." 49° And before Gideon v. Wainwright, *°° courts could request 45 Td. 46 Td. 47 Tn possible response to such concerns as I raise here, the Advisory Committee modified the

. P. 17(c)(Q). °4 See generally United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 689 (1974). 95 See id. at 699. D

th civil and criminal cases. 3!! While these cases do not directly involve [*913] appointment of counsel for crime victims, their principles 309 Cf. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963) (discussing "fairness" to the defendant as a reason for recognizing a right to appointed counsel). 310 150 C