[new yorker 77]

FYI

[NeoCaveman]

Clearly Nino is a stealth liberal sleeper cell, activated after a 20 years of solid conservative opinions.

(do I really need a sarcasm tag for this one)

[2banana]

This could be use to delay death penalty cases for forever...

[frithguild]

In his first written dissent, Justice Samuel Alito accused Scalia of making "a subtle but important mistake"

Republicans are divided on the issue. It threatens to tear the party asudner!

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Respondent Cuauhtemoc Gonzalez-Lopez was charged with conspiring to distribute marijuana in the Eastern District of Missouri. Upon his arrest, his family secured a lawyer for him (Mr. John Fahle), whom he had never met. Fahle represented Gonzalez-Lopez at an arraignment hearing, but shortly thereafter, Gonzalez-Lopez heard about a California lawyer named Joseph Low, who had recently secured a favorable deal for another defendant in a similar case before the same judge. Gonzalez-Lopez contacted Low and ultimately hired him. Shortly thereafter, Gonzalez-Lopez asked Fahle to withdraw from the case, leaving Low as his sole attorney.

Before the trial, Low applied for formal admission pro hac vice four times and applied for general admission to the Missouri bar, but the trial court denied his motions and tabled his application. The court based its ruling on Low’s alleged violation of a local rule, which, according to the trial court’s interpretation, prohibited lawyers from talking to represented parties without their current lawyer’s permission. On this basis, Low was denied the ability to represent Gonzalez-Lopez at trial.

Low had previously brought in another attorney, Karl Dickhaus, to act as local counsel while his applications for admission were pending. But after Low was denied admission, Dickhaus went on to represent Gonzalez-Lopez at trial in what was Dickhaus’s first federal criminal case. At trial, Low was not permitted to sit next to Gonzalez-Lopez or advise Dickhaus in any way; he was seated in the audience, with a U.S. Marshal placed between him and his client. He was denied the ability to consult with Gonzalez-Lopez until the last day of his trial.

[Dog Gone]

I'll have to read the decision in order to see if I agree with a reporter's charactization of it, but my initial reaction is that this is BS, and Scalia must be losing it.

The only hurdle should be whether one gets adequate legal representation, not who the particular attorney is.

If I have a constitutional right to Clarence Darrow as my attorney, and he happens to be DEAD, that is a problem.

[colorado tanker]

Just on what's in the article, I'd agree with Scalia. If it's a private attorney, not one provided by the State, the client should have the right to decide.

[Crawdad]

Somewhere in America, there's the worst lawyer in America.

[longtermmemmory]

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.

[TChris]

I believe this is a Scalia boo-boo. Alito got it right, IMO.

[Republican Wildcat]

So the so-called "swing vote" in this case wasn't Kennedy this time, but Scalia. Interesting.

[skr]

Since the family wasn't on trial, it would seem the defendant had the right to the attorney he chose unless mental competency is in question.

[MEGoody]

Defendants are automatically entitled to new trials if their choices of attorneys are wrongly blocked by judges, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

There's a lot more to this, lots of legaleeze stuff, but on it's face, I have to agree with Scalia. (Note the statement 'wrongly blocked by judges.')