Hamilton v. Alabama
E589327
Hamilton v. Alabama is a 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held an indigent defendant in a capital case has a constitutional right to counsel at arraignment, treating that stage as a critical point in the criminal process.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hamilton v. Alabama canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6350600 — 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: Hamilton v. Alabama Context triple: [Powell v. Alabama, precedentFor, Hamilton v. Alabama]
-
A.
Powell v. Alabama
Powell v. Alabama is a landmark 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held in capital cases the Due Process Clause requires defendants be given access to effective legal counsel, especially when they are young, illiterate, or otherwise disadvantaged.
-
B.
Jackson v. Georgia
Jackson v. Georgia is a United States Supreme Court case that, alongside Furman v. Georgia, addressed the constitutionality and application of the death penalty under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
C.
Stone v. Mississippi
Stone v. Mississippi is an 1880 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state cannot irrevocably surrender its police power, allowing Mississippi to prohibit a previously chartered lottery despite contractual claims.
-
D.
Chisholm v. Georgia
Chisholm v. Georgia was a 1793 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a state could be sued in federal court by a citizen of another state, a ruling that led directly to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment limiting such suits.
-
E.
Tennessee v. Lane
Tennessee v. Lane is a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to require states to provide accessible courthouses under the Americans with Disabilities Act as a valid enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- 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: Hamilton v. Alabama Target entity description: Hamilton v. Alabama is a 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held an indigent defendant in a capital case has a constitutional right to counsel at arraignment, treating that stage as a critical point in the criminal process.
-
A.
Powell v. Alabama
Powell v. Alabama is a landmark 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held in capital cases the Due Process Clause requires defendants be given access to effective legal counsel, especially when they are young, illiterate, or otherwise disadvantaged.
-
B.
Jackson v. Georgia
Jackson v. Georgia is a United States Supreme Court case that, alongside Furman v. Georgia, addressed the constitutionality and application of the death penalty under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
C.
Stone v. Mississippi
Stone v. Mississippi is an 1880 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state cannot irrevocably surrender its police power, allowing Mississippi to prohibit a previously chartered lottery despite contractual claims.
-
D.
Chisholm v. Georgia
Chisholm v. Georgia was a 1793 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a state could be sued in federal court by a citizen of another state, a ruling that led directly to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment limiting such suits.
-
E.
Tennessee v. Lane
Tennessee v. Lane is a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to require states to provide accessible courthouses under the Americans with Disabilities Act as a valid enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (37)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal procedure case ⓘ right to counsel case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ right to counsel jurisprudence ⓘ |
| bindingOn | state criminal proceedings ⓘ |
| citation | 368 U.S. 52 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
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
|
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1961-11-13 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous decision ⓘ |
| defendantStatus | indigent defendant ⓘ |
| effect | expanded the scope of the right to counsel to include arraignment in capital cases ⓘ |
| holding |
An indigent defendant in a capital case has a constitutional right to counsel at arraignment.
ⓘ
Arraignment in a capital case is a critical stage of the criminal process at which the defendant is entitled to counsel. ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Alabama ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
critical stage of criminal proceedings
ⓘ
right to counsel at arraignment ⓘ |
| opinionBy |
Justice Hugo Black
ⓘ
linked to:
Hugo L. Black
|
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 52 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Hamilton ⓘ |
| precedentFor | right to counsel at critical stages of prosecution ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | review of state court conviction in a capital case ⓘ |
| reasoning | absence of counsel at arraignment in a capital case is a denial of due process. ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Gideon v. Wainwright
ⓘ
White v. Maryland ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
arraignment
ⓘ
critical stage doctrine ⓘ |
| respondent |
State of Alabama
ⓘ
linked to:
Alabama
|
| result | conviction reversed ⓘ |
| stateLawContext | Alabama criminal procedure ⓘ |
| typeOfCase | capital case ⓘ |
| volumeInUnitedStatesReports | 368 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1961 ⓘ |
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: Hamilton v. Alabama Description of subject: Hamilton v. Alabama is a 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held an indigent defendant in a capital case has a constitutional right to counsel at arraignment, treating that stage as a critical point in the criminal process.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.