## Facts

- Walter A. Rothgery was arrested in Texas for being a felon in possession of a firearm based on erroneous information that he had a prior felony conviction.
- He was taken before a magistrate for an article 15.17 hearing, where he was informed of the accusation, a probable-cause determination was made, bail was set, and he was committed to jail pending bail.
- After posting surety bond, Rothgery was released and made multiple oral and written requests for appointed counsel, which were not acted on.
- He was later indicted, rearrested, had bail increased, and was jailed when he could not post the higher bail.
- Counsel was appointed only after indictment; counsel produced documentation showing the absence of a qualifying prior felony, and the indictment was dismissed.
- Rothgery sued the County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging an unwritten policy of delaying appointment of counsel for indigent defendants on bond until indictment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the County, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the theory that the Sixth Amendment right had not attached at the article 15.17 hearing because prosecutors were unaware of or uninvolved in that proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether an initial appearance before a magistrate, where the defendant is informed of the charge and liberty is restricted, initiates adversary judicial proceedings that attach the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
2. Whether attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel depends on a prosecutor’s awareness of or participation in the initial appearance.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that a defendant’s initial appearance before a magistrate, where the charge is communicated and liberty is subject to restriction, initiates adversary judicial proceedings and triggers attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
- The Court held that attachment does not require that a prosecutor be aware of or involved in the initial proceeding.
- The Court stated that, once the right attaches and a request for counsel is made, the State has an obligation to appoint counsel within a reasonable time, while leaving application of that standard and any § 1983 municipal-liability questions for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the first formal judicial proceeding in which the defendant is informed of the accusation and subjected to liberty restrictions, including an initial appearance before a magistrate.
- Attachment turns on the formal initiation of adversary judicial proceedings, not on prosecutorial knowledge of or participation in the initial appearance.
- After attachment, the State must appoint counsel within a reasonable time once the defendant requests assistance, though the Constitution does not necessarily require appointment immediately at the initial appearance in every case.
- A ruling on attachment alone does not resolve whether a particular delay violates the Sixth Amendment or whether a municipality is liable under § 1983; those issues depend on further factual and legal determinations.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at a defendant’s initial magistrate appearance where charges are announced and liberty is restricted, regardless of prosecutorial involvement, and it returned the case for consideration of whether the alleged delay in appointing counsel resulted in a constitutional violation and potential municipal liability.


Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008)