Posted on 06/26/2006 10:35:31 AM PDT by george wythe
A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a criminal conviction must be overturned when a trial judge wrongly denies the defendant his right to be represented by the lawyer of his choice.
[snip]
The case involved Cuauhtemoc Gonzalez-Lopez, who was charged in 2003 in St. Louis with conspiring to distribute marijuana. He hired a California attorney, Joseph Low, to represent him after hearing about Low's reputation as a trial attorney from other drug defendants.
Low was not admitted to practice before the federal district court and the trial judge rejected his request for permission to proceed with the case.
[snip]
Gonzalez-Lopez then retained a local attorney, who had never tried a criminal case. The trial judge rejected the local attorney's request that Low be allowed to sit at the table for the defense lawyers.
The judge restricted Low to the spectator section of the courtroom and barred any contact between Low and the local attorney during the trial proceedings.
(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.com ...
I wonder if this means that every minority defendant who asked for Johnny Cochran and didn't get him will be released now?
Do they get a lawyer of their own choice paid for by tax-payers or self paid?
If he can afford it - then he should get his choice but if the tax-payers refooting the bill - there should simply be a pool of laywers they must select from.
He joined the constitutional wing in this ruling. The trial judge was padding the verdict ahead of time. He should be off of the bench.
That pretty much summarizes Scalia's opinion. The alleged drug dealer had the money to hire attorney Low, but the judge didn't like Low, so he barred Low from even speaking to other attorneys involved in the case.
At a glance, it looks like the judge went too far - not simply not recognizing the lawyer to stand before the court, but barring even a locally recognized lawyer from conferring with him.
I'm sure there is a provision for requesting a lawyer that isn't your lawyer... or a dead lawyer.
I think it means that, if the defendant can afford to hire Johnny Cochran, the trial court cannot prevent Cochran from representing the defendant.
The law should also be enacted to strip the defendant of the right to pursue an "ineffective consel" proceeding after they insist on such an attorney.
Those are two separate rights - the right to counsel of choice, and the right to effective counsel.
Why? That's like saying that if you buy a particular car, you can't go to court if it turns out to be a lemon.
I think Ann Coulter warned us back when Reagan nominated Scalia, that Scalia would eventually prove to be liberal.
It sounds like the judge screwed the pooch on this one. Not allowing him to be prime representation was OK because he "was not admitted to practice before the federal district court", but there seems to be no justification from having him sit as counsel/advisor to a lawyer that was admitted. Much as our system seems to leak bad guys back out onto the streets, the concept is that it's better to let the occassional guilty guy go than to convict an innocent guy. That's the reason it seems so tilted in favor of the perps. Judges that go out of their way in either direction mess with the whole system.
"He joined the constitutional wing in this ruling. The trial judge was padding the verdict ahead of time. He should be off of the bench."
Agree.
wait... he died. never mind.
This ruling was professional courtesy.
Amazing development. Scary as a matter of fact. To think that Scalia agrees with Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg on anything is very disconcerting!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.