In what decision did the Supreme Court rule that a defendant has the right to legal counsel only in cases that lead to imprisonment?

The ruling in Scott v. Illinois established that the right to legal counsel is applicable only in cases where imprisonment could be imposed. This decision underlined the principle that states are required to provide legal counsel to defendants only when the potential for incarceration arises. The Court reasoned that while the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel, it does so in the context of situations where the consequences include imprisonment. This case set a significant boundary on the scope of the right to counsel, differentiating between cases that would potentially involve incarceration and those that would not.

In contrast, the other options focus on different aspects of the right to counsel or address separate legal principles. Gideon v. Wainwright expanded the right to counsel to state courts, specifically for felony cases, while Atkins v. Virginia addressed the execution of mentally disabled individuals. Faretta v. California concerned a defendant's right to represent themselves in court. Each of these cases contributes uniquely to the legal landscape surrounding the right to counsel, but it was Scott v. Illinois that specifically limited counsel rights to situations involving possible imprisonment.