York, , the Court ruled the accused had to be given an opportunity to cross-examine a witness called to rebut the accused's defense, even if the trial judge rules that defense to be misleading. In the late 20th and early 21st century this clause became an issue in the use of the silent witness rule. Compulsory process The Compulsory Process Clause gives any criminal defendant the right to call witnesses in his favor. If any such witness refuses to testify, that witness may be compelled to do so by the court at the request of the defendant. However, in some cases the court may refuse to permit a defense witness to testify. For example, if a defense lawyer fails to notify the prosecution of the identity of a witness to gain a tactical advantage, that witness may be precluded from testifying. Assistance of counsel A criminal defendant has the right to be assisted by counsel. In Powell v. Alabama, , the Supreme Court ruled that "in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him." In Johnson v. Zerbst, , the Supreme Court ruled that in all federal cases, counsel would have to be appointed for defendants who were too poor to hire their own. In 1961, the Court extended the rule that applied in federal courts to state courts. It held in Hamilton v. Alabama, , that counsel had to be provided at no expense to defendants in capital cases when they so requested, even if there was no "ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like". Gideon v. Wainwright, , ruled that counsel must be provided to indigent defendants in all felony cases, overruling Betts v. Brady, , in which the Court ruled that state courts had to appoint counsel only when the defendant demonstrated "special circumstances" requiring the assistance of counsel. Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, , counsel must be appointed in any case resulting in a sentence of actual imprisonment. Regarding sentences not immediately leading to imprisonment, the Court in Scott v. Illinois, , ruled that counsel did not need to be appointed, but in Alabama v. Shelton, , the Court held that a suspended sentence that may result in incarceration cannot