| Litigants: | Fuller v. Oregon |
| Arguedate: | March 26 |
| Argueyear: | 1974 |
| Decidedate: | May 20 |
| Decideyear: | 1974 |
| Fullname: | Prince Eric Fuller v. State of Oregon |
| Usvol: | 417 |
| Uspage: | 40 |
| Parallelcitations: | 94 S.Ct. 2116; 40 L. Ed. 2d 642; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 55 |
| Holding: | (1) The Oregon recoupment scheme does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.(2) The Oregon law does not infringe upon a defendant's right to counsel, since the knowledge that he may ultimately have to repay the costs of legal services does not affect his ability to obtain such services. The challenged statute is thus not similar to a provision that "chill[s] the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them." |
| Majority: | Stewart |
| Joinmajority: | Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Concurrence: | Douglas |
| Dissent: | Marshall |
| Joindissent: | Brennan |
| Lawsapplied: | U.S. Const. amend. VI
|
Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Oregon's statute allowing for the recoupment of costs related to court-appointed defense counsel did not violate either the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause or the Sixth Amendment's Assistance of Counsel Clause. The statute required convicted defendants who were indigent at the time of their trial, but later acquired financial means, to repay the costs of their court-appointed lawyer and investigator.[1] [2]