Posted on 06/26/2006 1:23:37 PM PDT by new yorker 77
Okay, pick any famous LIVE attorney. It doesn't detract from my point.
I haven't read the opinion, but it doesn't appear that you get to choose just anyone and they have to represent you....but if you decide you want "A" and can afford her, and your family or the courts pick "B"...you get to use "A"....
Seems like a resonable liberty in this free Country...
This was a federal trial on a federal charge. The judge could have easily admitted the guy's lawyer of choice just for that particular trial, but chose not to, for whatever reason. Instead the case was handled by a proxy, who had never tried a federal criminal case before in his life.
have to agree with the majority on this one.
Makes sense, if the lawyer is willing then he should not be blocked by a judge from representing.
The lawyer in question would have to agree to take your case before you have the right to be represented by him/her. Assuming that the lawyer is qualified [bar membership], that you have the $$$$ to afford it and that his/her schedule allows it [otherwise the lawyer would not take your case], once you retain that lawyer's services, you have that right - that's how I read Scalia's opinion.
I "accuse you" of misreading the decision (to put it in the same terms as the MSM trying to make it look like a major split between conservatives).
It only says the court can't deny you your choice. It does not say that you get whoever you want even if the lawyer can't or won't do it.
I think I side with Scalia. And frankly I'm surprised. Scalia usually bends over backwards and tortures logic to put drug dealers and users away even when they have a case.
Do we want to have to use a lawyer just because a judge picks him over our wishes? Why not let the judge pick the jury? Why not let the judge pick the charges to charge you with....?? Why not let the judge pick which cases can be appealed?
I believe this is a Scalia boo-boo. Alito got it right, IMO.
What they *don't* mean is that if you're not admitted to the bar in a particular state you're forever forbidden from practicing there.
Honestly, if it hadn't been a drug case it probably would have been 9-0.
Drug cases, especially marijuana, cause some conservatives to lose their constitutional senses.
I don't care. It opens Pandora's Box.
Once the standard is changed from whether the standard of representation meets constitutional standards to some sort of preference thing where you can argue that a different attorney would have obtained a different outcome, all hell breaks loose.
It is not a long legal jump to argue that everyone is entitled to the best attorney in the country, and absent that, all convictions should be thrown out.
It is called "pro hac vice" (pro hak vee-cheh)
It allows a lawyer to appear for a particular case as long as there is a local counsel to vouch for them. This is how you have these national lawyers appearing in all the various state courts.
VERY routine. Only becomes an issue if the lawyer is doing it too much. Then the judge will say, go pass the state bar.
Of course this begs the licensing scheeme. Does this mean, that as long as you are a lawyer SOMEWHERE you have to be permitted into a federal court?
(BTW you don't have to be a lawyer to represent people in the immigration service)
Argumentum ad absurdum.
Yes and no.
It is absurd.
But so is this decision. If a paying client is entitled to his choice of attorney or the verdict is thrown out, how do you tell the indigent client that he has less legal rights?
Scalia seems to have got one right for a change. Else we have the situation where the judge and prosecutaion (both elected by and representing The People often) get to determine who may represent a defendant. Of course, the defendant may be too stupid (or too poor) to get a good lawyer.
Nope. What you are saying is that you have the right to force yourself as a client on the best attorney in the country, which is absurd. If that attorney takes up your case - good for you; if not, you'll have to settle on what's available.
yeah, I think this one is hard to pinpoint just what is right or wrong. IN one way I agree with Alito and in another I agree with Scalia. Honestly, I'm just afraid that means any criminal defendent will start using this as an excuse to get a mistrial and claim unfairness cause they didn't like the attorney representing him.
Here the public defenders are very good.
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.