Westbrook v. Arizona

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 384 U.S. 150, 16 L. Ed. 2d 429, 86 S. Ct. 1320, SCDB 1965-098, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 1720

Decision Date: 5/2/1966

Docket Number: No. 1250

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 16 L. Ed. 2d 429, 86 S. Ct. 1320, SCDB 1965-098, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 1720 (1966)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1966

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Landmark AuthorityTop 1% most-cited · cited by 160 decisions

160

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

Ariz.19

9th Cir.10

Cal. Ct. App.7

Ariz. Ct. App.6

2d Cir.5

D.C. Cir.5

Most recently cited by10

2026State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Quan Turner Minn.
2022State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad Ariz.
2022Chyatte v. Gootkin D. Mont.
2021Commonwealth v. Haltiwanger Mass. App. Ct.
2021State v. Lawson (Slip Opinion) Ohio
2020United States v. Stephen Patterson, Jr. 6th Cir.
2017Tatum v. Foster 7th Cir.
2013State v. Cox Kan.
2012State v. Francisco La. Ct. App.
2012State v. McLemore Ariz. Ct. App.

Cites 3 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

WESTBROOK v. ARIZONA.

Attorneys

W. Edward, Morgan for petitioner.
Darrell F. Smith, Attorney General of Arizona, and Paul G. Rosenblatt, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

majority Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. Although petitioner received a hearing on the issue of his competence to stand trial, there appears to have been no hearing or inquiry into the issue of his competence to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and proceed, as he did, to conduct his own defense. “The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused — whose life or liberty is at stake — is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 465; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506.

From an independent examination of the record, we conclude that the question whether this “protecting duty” was fulfilled should be re-examined in light of our decision this Term in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

It is so ordered.