Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Francisco v. Gathright, Correctional Superintendent

• 1974 • 419 U.S. 59 • Burger Court
In the case of Francisco v. Gathright, 1974, the petitioner, a state prisoner in Virginia, sought to challenge his conviction on constitutional grounds through habeas corpus proceedings. He claimed that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his lawyer failed to object to certain evidence and did not adequately cross-examine witnesses during trial. The District Court dismissed his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel for him. The Supreme Court...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1974
Docket: 73-5768
419 U.S. 59
95 S. Ct. 257
42 L. Ed. 2d 226
1974 U.S. LEXIS 18
Argued: Oct 15, 1974

Francisco v. Gathright, Correctional Superintendent

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Francisco v. Gathright, 1974, the petitioner, a state prisoner in Virginia, sought to challenge his conviction on constitutional grounds through habeas corpus proceedings. He claimed that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his lawyer failed to object to certain evidence and did not adequately cross-examine witnesses during trial. The District Court dismissed his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel for him. The Supreme Court held that it was error for the District Court not to have appointed counsel for Francisco before dismissing his petition since this violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also ruled that if there were factual disputes regarding whether Francisco's original attorney had provided ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, then an evidentiary hearing should be conducted by the court. This decision underscored two important principles: firstly, prisoners who cannot afford legal representation must be provided with one when challenging their convictions; secondly, courts are required to conduct hearings whenever there is a genuine dispute over facts related to claims made in habeas corpus petitions.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Francisco v. Gathright, 1974, Justice Douglas argued that the case should have been heard by the Supreme Court due to its implications on prisoner rights and constitutional law. He disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss it as a habeas corpus petition without hearing oral arguments or fully reviewing briefs. The petitioner was an inmate who claimed his First Amendment rights were violated when he was placed in solitary confinement for attempting to form a union among prisoners. Justice Douglas believed this raised serious questions about freedom of speech and association within prisons, which deserved full consideration by the court. He also expressed concern over potential misuse of administrative segregation in prisons as punishment for constitutionally protected activities.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: Nov 19, 1974
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms