Scott v. Illinois
E280897
Scott v. Illinois is a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel applies only when a defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment, thereby limiting the broader protections suggested in Argersinger v. Hamlin.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Scott v. Illinois canonical | 4 |
| Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2594028 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Scott v. Illinois Context triple: [Argersinger v. Hamlin, overruledOrLimitedBy, Scott v. Illinois]
-
A.
Moore v. Illinois
Moore v. Illinois is a United States Supreme Court decision addressing constitutional criminal procedure issues, particularly concerning the rights of defendants in state prosecutions.
-
B.
Escobedo v. Illinois
Escobedo v. Illinois is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogations and helped lay the groundwork for the later Miranda warnings.
-
C.
Timbs v. Indiana
Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
D.
DeBoer v. Snyder
DeBoer v. Snyder was a federal court case challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that became one of the key cases consolidated into the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
-
E.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Scott v. Illinois Target entity description: Scott v. Illinois is a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel applies only when a defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment, thereby limiting the broader protections suggested in Argersinger v. Hamlin.
-
A.
Moore v. Illinois
Moore v. Illinois is a United States Supreme Court decision addressing constitutional criminal procedure issues, particularly concerning the rights of defendants in state prosecutions.
-
B.
Escobedo v. Illinois
Escobedo v. Illinois is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogations and helped lay the groundwork for the later Miranda warnings.
-
C.
Timbs v. Indiana
Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
D.
DeBoer v. Snyder
DeBoer v. Snyder was a federal court case challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban that became one of the key cases consolidated into the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
-
E.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Sixth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
misdemeanor prosecutions
ⓘ
petty offenses ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ criminal procedure ⓘ |
| citation | 440 U.S. 367 ⓘ |
| citationStyle |
Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979)
ⓘ
linked to:
Scott v. Illinois
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
linked to:
Fourteenth Amendment
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1979-03-05 ⓘ |
| decisionType | majority decision ⓘ |
| defendantType | indigent defendant ⓘ |
| effect |
Narrowed the scope of the right to counsel in non-felony cases.
ⓘ
States are not required to provide counsel when only a fine is imposed. ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | Scott v. Illinois ⓘ |
| holding |
The Sixth Amendment requires appointed counsel only when a defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment.
ⓘ
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel when no term of imprisonment is imposed. ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| legalIssue |
Sixth Amendment
ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
appointment of counsel for indigent defendants ⓘ right to counsel ⓘ |
| limits | Argersinger v. Hamlin ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| overrules | broad reading of Argersinger v. Hamlin ⓘ |
| page | 367 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Scott ⓘ |
| precedentialStatus | binding precedent in federal and state courts on right-to-counsel issues involving actual imprisonment ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Alabama v. Shelton
ⓘ
Argersinger v. Hamlin ⓘ Gideon v. Wainwright ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent |
State of Illinois
ⓘ
linked to:
Illinois
|
| ruleAnnounced | Actual imprisonment standard for right to appointed counsel in misdemeanor cases ⓘ |
| standard | Right to counsel attaches when a defendant is actually sentenced to jail, not merely exposed to jail time. ⓘ |
| stateParty | Illinois ⓘ |
| subsequentTreatment | Clarified and limited by Alabama v. Shelton regarding suspended sentences ⓘ |
| timePeriod | Warren and Burger Court era ⓘ |
| volume | 440 ⓘ |
| voteDissent | 4 ⓘ |
| voteMajority | 5 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Scott v. Illinois Description of subject: Scott v. Illinois is a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel applies only when a defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment, thereby limiting the broader protections suggested in Argersinger v. Hamlin.
Referenced by (5)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Scott v. Illinois