Writing for the Court, Justice Owen Roberts held that the Sixth Amendment requires that indigent defendants in federal criminal trials be provided counsel unless this right is competently and intelligently waived. He wrote, “[s]ince the Sixth Amendment constitutionally entitles one charged with crime to the assistance of counsel, compliance with this constitutional mandate is an essential jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal court's authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty.”

Specific to the defendants in the case, Roberts disagreed with the assertion that they had waived their right to counsel, finding no compelling evidence that they had done so in the proceedings. He explained, “[w]hile an accused may waive the right to counsel, whether there is a proper waiver should be clearly determined by the trial court, and it would be fitting and appropriate for that determination to appear upon the record.”

Roberts concluded by remanding the case to the District Court and wrote “[i]f-on remand-the District Court finds from all of the evidence that petitioner has sustained the burden of proof resting upon him and that he did not competently and intelligently waive his right to counsel, it will follow that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to proceed to judgment and conviction of petitioner, and he will therefore be entitled to have his petition granted.”