Final answer:
The correct answer is A: Scott v. Illinois established that the right to counsel applies only when the defendant is charged with an offense for which they could be sentenced to incarceration, which poses risks for those charged with minor offenses because it may leave them without legal representation.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the case of Scott v. Illinois, the ruling established that defendants are entitled to the right to counsel only when they are charged with offenses for which the sentence could include incarceration. This did not extend the right to appointed counsel for every criminal prosecution, notably for minor offenses where no actual imprisonment occurs. Therefore, the correct answer is A: Scott v. Illinois established that defendants have the right to counsel only if they face a sentence of over one year, posing risks for individuals charged with minor offenses.
For people charged with minor offenses where there may be no risk of jail time, this presents a risk, as they might not have the legal representation that could assist in ensuring a fair trial or helping to navigate the complexities of the legal system. Furthermore, defendants without the means to hire a private attorney might have to represent themselves, potentially putting them at a disadvantage.