October Term 2007 · Docket 07-440
Does a Texas magistration start the Sixth Amendment right to counsel?
The dispute centers on whether a pre-charge magistration triggers the right to counsel.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Spinelli argued the magistration marks the start of a criminal prosecution.
Mr. Coleman argued the magistration does not begin a criminal prosecution.
Justice Roberts questioned how the proceeding could be adversarial without the prosecution present.
Justice Kennedy sought a specific rule to tell states when counsel must be appointed.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 33-45
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Rothgery argues the magistration starts the prosecution. The county argues it does not.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 17, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
Rothgery wants the Court to rule that the magistration starts the right to counsel.
The county wants the Court to rule that the magistration does not start the right.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
What each side says
Rothgery argues the magistration is an initial appearance that starts the prosecution.
The county argues no formal charges existed, so the right had not attached.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if Texas could bar an attorney from the magistration.
Justice Ginsburg asked exactly when the right to counsel attached in this case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 33-45
Why it matters
This case defines when states must provide counsel to arrested individuals. It sets a clear rule for state courts. It affects the rights of all criminal defendants.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 33-45
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.