MONTANA DISTRICT COURT

FOR GRIZZLY PEAKS

1. Parties Filing this Constitutional Challenge

1. Chief Counsel: Tom Najail,

on behalf of Yebatsa Sul.

2. Question

1. Does the Emergency Conviction Act of 2022 violate Article 1, Section 5 of the Montana State Constitution?
2. Does Article 1, Section 8 of the Montana State Constitution violate the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

3. Jurisdiction

1. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under Montana State Rules of Court, Art. II, § 1.

4. Introduction

1. May it please the court, this constitutional challenge arises from an event which transpired on the 19th of February, 2022 where the plaintiff was arrested by an officer acting on behalf of the Montana State Police and summarily convicted and remanded to the Department of Corrections without assistance of legal counsel despite protests of innocence and no recourse to be presented in front of a court of law. On behalf of the plaintiff, I will be arguing that this practice, as allowed by the Emergency Convictions act and Section 8 of the Montana State Constitution, is in direct violation of the Sixth amendment of the United States Constitution made binding upon the state by way of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as established in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

5. Argument

1. In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), the Supreme Court ruled that "in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defence because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him."

In Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), the Supreme Court ruled that in all federal cases, counsel would have to be appointed for defendants who were too poor to hire their own.

In Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961), the Court extended the rule that applied in federal courts to state courts. It held that counsel had to be provided at no expense to defendants in capital cases when they so requested, even if there was no "ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like".

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), ruled that counsel must be provided to indigent defendants in all felony cases, overruling Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), in which the Court ruled that state courts had to appoint counsel only when the defendant demonstrated "special circumstances" requiring the assistance of counsel.

Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), counsel must be appointed in any case resulting in a sentence of actual imprisonment.

Your Honour, these are but a handful of cases that make explicit that legal counsel is an explicit right and one that should not be based on convenience to the arresting officer.

6. Conclusion

1. In closing, the right to legal counsel is one of the cornerstones of a fair and just legal system, one that cannot simply be brushed under the rug because it isn’t convenient. Whilst the Emergency Convictions Act was passed with good intentions, it is nothing more than a poor repair job on a systemic issue by an inept legislature with no accountability and drafted by those who would rather erode at our constitutional rights than learn some basic legal theory.

7. Filed

1. 23rd February 2022