United States Fifth Circuit

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit brought against a county alleging that it violated plaintiff's constitutional right to counsel by following a policy of denying appointed counsel to arrestees released from jail on bond, and by failing to adequately train and monitor those involved in the appointment-of-counsel process, summary judgment for the county is affirmed where plaintiff's appearance in the underlying case did not commence adversary judicial proceedings for purposes of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/29/2007
• Published 07/02/2007

Judges

• KING, Circuit Judge:, Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Fifth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• William Gerow Christian (argued), Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, Andrea M. Marsh, Harry Williams, IV, Texas Fair Defense Project, Austin, TX, for Rothgery., Susanna Dokupil, R. Ted Cruz, Austin, TX, for Amicus Curiae, State of TX., George E. Dix, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, TX, for Amicus Curiae University of Texas School of Law.


• For Appellees:
  
• Charles Straith Frigerio (argued), Hector X. Saenz, Law Offices of Charles S. Frigerio, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.