Argersinger v. Hamlin
E58186
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Argersinger v. Hamlin canonical | 5 |
| Jon Richard Argersinger v. Raymond Hamlin, Sheriff | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T461319 — 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: Argersinger v. Hamlin Context triple: [Gideon v. Wainwright, precedentFor, Argersinger v. Hamlin]
-
A.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Sherbert v. Verner
Sherbert v. Verner is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that strengthened protections for religious liberty by requiring strict scrutiny of government actions that substantially burden individuals’ religious practices.
-
D.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
E.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
- 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: Argersinger v. Hamlin Target entity description: Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
A.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Sherbert v. Verner
Sherbert v. Verner is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that strengthened protections for religious liberty by requiring strict scrutiny of government actions that substantially burden individuals’ religious practices.
-
D.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
E.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal procedure case ⓘ right to counsel case ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
indigent defendants
ⓘ
misdemeanor cases ⓘ petty offense cases ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ criminal procedure ⓘ |
| citation | 407 U.S. 25 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Sixth Amendment
|
| constitutionalRightExpanded | right to appointed counsel beyond felony cases ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1972-06-12 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 70-5015 ⓘ |
| effect | required states to provide counsel before imposing a jail sentence for any offense ⓘ |
| extendedFrom | Gideon v. Wainwright ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Argersinger v. Hamlin
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Jon Richard Argersinger v. Raymond Hamlin, Sheriff
|
| holding |
No person may be imprisoned for any offense unless represented by counsel or unless there was a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.
ⓘ
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to misdemeanor and petty offense prosecutions that result in actual imprisonment. ⓘ |
| issue | Whether an indigent defendant charged with a misdemeanor that may result in imprisonment has a constitutional right to appointed counsel. ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Florida ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple |
Due Process Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
right to counsel ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
William O. Douglas
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William O. Douglas
|
| overruledOrLimitedBy | Scott v. Illinois ⓘ |
| page | 25 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Jon Richard Argersinger ⓘ |
| precedentFor | right to counsel in misdemeanor cases involving imprisonment ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Gideon v. Wainwright
ⓘ
Scott v. Illinois ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | Hamlin ⓘ |
| result | conviction reversed ⓘ |
| stateCourt | Florida Supreme Court ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
criminal sentencing
ⓘ
indigent defense ⓘ |
| unanimousDecision | true ⓘ |
| volume | 407 ⓘ |
| vote | 9-0 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1972 ⓘ |
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: Argersinger v. Hamlin Description of subject: Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
Referenced by (6)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Jon Richard Argersinger v. Raymond Hamlin, Sheriff