Court Rules Judges Don't Have to Warn Defendants

Entitlement to a Lawyer Goes Only So Far

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that while people pleading guilty to crimes are entitled to an attorney, judges don't have to warn them of the disadvantages of not seeing a lawyer.

Justices used the case of an Iowa man convicted of drunken driving to clarify rights under the Constitution's Sixth Amendment, which guarantees legal assistance to those accused of crimes.

In its 9-0 ruling, the court reaffirmed that people facing prison time are entitled to attorneys at critical stages of the process, including a plea hearing.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said from the bench that the court has not "prescribed any formula or script to be read to a defendant who states that he elects to plead guilty without counsel."

The high court overturned an Iowa Supreme Court decision that said judges must tell defendants of the disadvantages of pleading guilty without consulting a lawyer.

Ginsburg said states are free to adopt their own rules, but such warnings are not required by the Constitution.

Iowa had appealed the state court's decision, with the backing of the Bush administration and more than 30 states.

At issue was the case of former Iowa college student Felipe Tovar, who didn't hire a lawyer when he went to court on drunken driving charges -- and didn't get the best deal possible.

The case is Iowa v. Tovar, 02-1541.

-- -- --

On the Net:

Supreme Court briefs: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/home.html