THIS BLOC ANALYSIS WAS UNDERTAKEN TO REVEAL AND REVIEW THE REASONINGS AND VOTING PATTERNS OF THE BLOCS, TO STUDY THE CONTENT AND SCOPE OF THE DECISIONS, AND TO ATTEMPT TO PREDICT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THOSE FACTORS FOR FURTHER CASES. THE ANALYSIS IS PRECEDED BY A DISCUSSION OF THE EIGHT WARREN COURT RIGHT TO COUNSEL RULINGS, FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN GIDEON V WAINWRIGHT (1963), WHICH EXPANDED THE RIGHT TO INCLUDE PRETRIAL AND POST-TRIAL REPRESENTATION RIGHTS. BURGER COURT HOLDINGS ON COLLATERAL ISSUES - EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION AND SELF-REPRESENTATION - ARE ALSO EXAMINED AS ARE RULINGS ON REPRESENTATION IN PRETRIAL AND POST TRIAL PROCEEDINGS. EXAMINATION YIELDED AN EQUAL SPLIT AMONG THE 16 BURGER COURT REPRESENTATION RULINGS EXTENDING AND RESTRICTING RIGHT AND THE PRESENCE OF 3 DISTINCT VOTING BLOCS. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE PATTERN ESTABLISHED BY THESE DECISIONS IS THAT WHEN A DEFENDANT IS FACED WITH THE POSSIBLE TRIAL-LIKE CONFRONTATION AND WITH A POSSIBLE LOSS OF LIBERTY, THE RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION IS INVIOLABLE.