U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, Cuauhtemoc (06/26/2006)

Question presented: Whether a district court's denial of a criminal defendant's qualified right to be represented by counsel of choice requires automatic reversal of his conviction?

BY BLATHNAID HEALY, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Cuauhtémoc Gonzalez-Lopez's trial, in the Eastern District of Missouri, on charges of conspiring to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana was complicated from the outset.

Gonzalez-Lopez wanted to hire Joseph Low, a defense attorney from California, who had a good reputation for winning similar cases. But when Low came to the district court to represent the defendant, he was not admitted.

The relatives of the defendant had already hired John Fahle, another attorney. Fahle had represented Gonzalez-Lopez at the arraignment, but the defendant had decided to switch counsel before the trial began.

A month after Gonzalez-Lopez informed Fahle that he didn't want to be represented by him, Fahle filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. He also asked that the court impose sanctions on Low, claiming that Low had violated the proper rules of professional conduct by communicating with his client, Gonzalez-Lopez, without his consent.

Low made three attempts to ask the judge's permission to represent Gonzalez-Lopez. The judge denied each attempt, citing unethical conduct in a prior case that had been heard in the same court.

Low then suggested that Gonzalez-Lopez hire Karl Dickhaus, a local attorney. Dickhaus specialized in consumer protection law and had never tried a federal criminal case before. Low recommended Dickhaus because he was confident he would eventually be hired on as counsel.

Low intended to communicate with Dickhaus over the course of the trial and asked for permission to sit with him at the table to assist with the defense. The request was denied and Low was ordered to have no communication with the defendant during breaks or after the trial when he was taken to a detention facility in the evenings. A federal marshal was placed between Low and Dickhaus to prevent them from communicating during trial.

Dickhaus' inexperience in federal criminal cases came to the fore when the court suggested that he read the Federal Rules of Evidence after he found it difficult to understand an objection from the government.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced to more than 25 years in prison.

Gonzalez-Lopez appealed the district court's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that his inability to have Low represent him violated his 6th Amendment right to the assistance of counsel.

The government defended the district court and argued that Gonzalez-Lopez had been given his choice of counsel, Fahle. The government also maintained that a judge could deny an attorney access to representation if he or she is deemed to have engaged in unethical practices.

On March 8, 2005, a unanimous 8th Circuit panel found that the denial of counsel prejudiced Gonzalez-Lopez's case and resulted in his conviction.

"We conclude the district court erred in denying Low's application for admission," wrote Judge Kermit Bye.

Once the court made that determination, it addressed whether a defendant must show that the erroneous denial of counsel actually prejudiced his trial or whether the error should result in an automatic reversal of Gonzalez-Lopez's conviction.

Bye wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court had not previously decided whether the denial of counsel of choice is also denial of the 6th Amendment right to counsel. Neither had the 8th Circuit. However, Bye noted that all other federal circuits that have dealt with it have held that a criminal defendant denied his right to be represented by his chosen attorney does not have to show prejudice.

The 8th Circuit agreed.

"The denial of the right to be represented by one's selected attorney 'infects the entire trial process' from 'beginning to end,'" Bye wrote, in referring to the denial of counsel as a fundamental constitutional error. The court vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial.

In seeking Supreme Court review, the U.S. Solicitor General's office argued the 8th Circuit decision places an unnecessary burden on both the government and the courts.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the Supreme Court accepted review in the case, and on June 26, a divided Court sided with Gonzalez-Lopez, concluding that his 6th Amendment right to counsel was violated, necessitating a reversal of his conviction.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Court's lead opinion, in which he opined that once a 6th Amendment right to counsel is violated, there can be no harmless error, in large part because counsel affects the very framework within which a trial occurs.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent for himself, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.