United States v. Gouveia
 | This article is missing information about Error: you must specify what information is missing.. (January 2015) |
| United States v. Gouveia | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 20, 1984 Decided May 29, 1984 | |
| Full case name | United States v. William Gouveia, et al. |
| Citations | 467 U.S. 180 (more) 104 S. Ct. 2292; 81 L. Ed. 2d 146; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 91; 52 U.S.L.W. 4659 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| Holding | |
| Respondents were not constitutionally entitled to the appointment of counsel while they were in administrative segregation and before any adversary judicial proceedings had been initiated against them. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Stevens, joined by Brennan |
| Dissent | Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. VI | |
United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 (1984)[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that prisoners in administrative segregation pending the investigation of crimes committed within the prison had no Sixth Amendment entitlement to counsel prior to the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings against them.
See also
External links
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |