United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
Encyclopedia
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140
(2006), is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that the erroneous deprivation of a defendant's attorney of choice entitles him to a reversal of his conviction under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
.
. His family initially hired local attorney John Fahle to represent him, but Gonzalez-Lopez then contacted and hired a California attorney, Joseph Low, to represent him, and the understanding appeared to be that Fahle and Low would work together on his case. The district court initially permitted Low and Fahle to work together, admitting Low pro hac vice
(just this once) , but soon revoked such permission, ruling that Low, when he passed notes to Fahle in a pretrial hearing, violated a local court rule restricting the cross-examination
of a witness to one attorney.
Gonzalez-Lopez then informed Fahle that he wanted Low to be his only attorney, and Low then filed another request to be admitted pro hac vice
, which the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
both rejected. Meanwhile, Fahle filed a complaint against Low, claiming that Low had violated the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct by contacting Gonzalez-Lopez while Fahle represented him. Fahle also sought to withdraw from the case. The district court let Fahle withdraw, ruled that Low violated the rules of professional conduct, and did not let Low represent Gonzalez-Lopez. Gonzalez-Lopez went to trial represented by another attorney, Karl Dickhaus, who requested permission for Low to sit with him at the counsel table. The trial judge denied that request and ordered Low to sit in the audience and not to speak with Dickhaus, enforcing the order by having a federal marshal sit between Dickhaus and Low throughout the trial. Gonzalez-Lopez was found guilty.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed Gonzalez-Lopez's conviction. It ruled, in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 399 F. 3d 924 (8th Cir. 2005), that the district court both erred in ruling that Low violated the rules of professional conduct and in refusing to allow Low to represent Gonzalez-Lopez. It further ruled that the error in denying Gonzalez-Lopez his right to choice of counsel (Low) was "structural" in nature—i.e., reversible without harmless error
analysis. The prosecution then petitioned for certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. It did not dispute that the district court erred and improperly denied Gonzalez-Lopez his choice of counsel, but argued that such error should be subject to harmless error analysis, and that Gonzalez-Lopez was not prejudiced by the error.
, writing for the majority (5-4), held that the denial of Gonzalez-Lopez's right of choice of counsel was a structural error, requiring reversal without harmless error analysis. The Scalia opinion reasoned that the refusal to let Low represent Gonzalez-Lopez caused effects that could never be adequately measured for harmless error, because it is impossible to speculate on what the effect that a different attorney and one that the defendant wished to have would have had on the proceedings — including, whether a trial would have occurred in the first place. The entire proceeding was therefore unfair and unreliable, and must be reversed. Justice Scalia was joined by Justice John Paul Stevens
, Justice David Souter
, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Stephen Breyer
.
, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts
, Justice Anthony Kennedy
, and Justice Clarence Thomas
, dissented. Alito wrote that the Court had misinterpreted the Sixth Amendment's protection of the right to counsel to protect a defendant's choice of counsel, when he believed the text and history of the Amendment indicated that it merely protected a defendant's right to assistance that was as effective as his choice of counsel would be. Even if it protected choice of counsel, it did not mean that violation of this right should be grounds for automatic reversal. Instead, because the Constitution lacked directives as to how such rights should be enforced, the Court should follow the Congressional directive to apply harmless error analysis.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2006), is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
ruling that the erroneous deprivation of a defendant's attorney of choice entitles him to a reversal of his conviction under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
.
Background
The defendant in the underlying case, Cuauhtemoc Gonzalez-Lopez, was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of MissouriUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri is a trial level federal district court based in St. Louis, Missouri, with jurisdiction over fifty counties in the eastern half of Missouri. The court is one of ninety-four district-level courts which make up the first tier of...
. His family initially hired local attorney John Fahle to represent him, but Gonzalez-Lopez then contacted and hired a California attorney, Joseph Low, to represent him, and the understanding appeared to be that Fahle and Low would work together on his case. The district court initially permitted Low and Fahle to work together, admitting Low pro hac vice
Pro hac vice
Pro hac vice , Latin: "for this occasion" or "for this event", is a legal term usually referring to a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a certain jurisdiction but has been allowed to participate in a particular case in that jurisdiction.The right to appear pro hac vice is not...
(just this once) , but soon revoked such permission, ruling that Low, when he passed notes to Fahle in a pretrial hearing, violated a local court rule restricting the cross-examination
Cross-examination
In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination and may be followed by a redirect .- Variations by Jurisdiction :In...
of a witness to one attorney.
Gonzalez-Lopez then informed Fahle that he wanted Low to be his only attorney, and Low then filed another request to be admitted pro hac vice
Pro hac vice
Pro hac vice , Latin: "for this occasion" or "for this event", is a legal term usually referring to a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a certain jurisdiction but has been allowed to participate in a particular case in that jurisdiction.The right to appear pro hac vice is not...
, which the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Arkansas* Western District of Arkansas...
both rejected. Meanwhile, Fahle filed a complaint against Low, claiming that Low had violated the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct by contacting Gonzalez-Lopez while Fahle represented him. Fahle also sought to withdraw from the case. The district court let Fahle withdraw, ruled that Low violated the rules of professional conduct, and did not let Low represent Gonzalez-Lopez. Gonzalez-Lopez went to trial represented by another attorney, Karl Dickhaus, who requested permission for Low to sit with him at the counsel table. The trial judge denied that request and ordered Low to sit in the audience and not to speak with Dickhaus, enforcing the order by having a federal marshal sit between Dickhaus and Low throughout the trial. Gonzalez-Lopez was found guilty.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed Gonzalez-Lopez's conviction. It ruled, in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 399 F. 3d 924 (8th Cir. 2005), that the district court both erred in ruling that Low violated the rules of professional conduct and in refusing to allow Low to represent Gonzalez-Lopez. It further ruled that the error in denying Gonzalez-Lopez his right to choice of counsel (Low) was "structural" in nature—i.e., reversible without harmless error
Harmless error
A harmless error is a ruling by a trial judge that, although mistaken, does not meet the burden for a losing party to reverse the original decision of the trier of fact on appeal, or to warrant a new trial. Harmless error is easiest to understand in an evidentiary context...
analysis. The prosecution then petitioned for certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. It did not dispute that the district court erred and improperly denied Gonzalez-Lopez his choice of counsel, but argued that such error should be subject to harmless error analysis, and that Gonzalez-Lopez was not prejudiced by the error.
Majority
Justice Antonin ScaliaAntonin Scalia
Antonin Gregory Scalia is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice...
, writing for the majority (5-4), held that the denial of Gonzalez-Lopez's right of choice of counsel was a structural error, requiring reversal without harmless error analysis. The Scalia opinion reasoned that the refusal to let Low represent Gonzalez-Lopez caused effects that could never be adequately measured for harmless error, because it is impossible to speculate on what the effect that a different attorney and one that the defendant wished to have would have had on the proceedings — including, whether a trial would have occurred in the first place. The entire proceeding was therefore unfair and unreliable, and must be reversed. Justice Scalia was joined by Justice John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
, Justice David Souter
David Souter
David Hackett Souter is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He served from 1990 until his retirement on June 29, 2009. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush to fill the seat vacated by William J...
, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Stephen Breyer
Stephen Breyer
Stephen Gerald Breyer is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court....
.
Dissent
Justice Samuel AlitoSamuel Alito
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was nominated by President George W. Bush and has served on the court since January 31, 2006....
, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts
John Roberts
John Glover Roberts, Jr. is the 17th and current Chief Justice of the United States. He has served since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist...
, Justice Anthony Kennedy
Anthony Kennedy
Anthony McLeod Kennedy is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has often been the swing vote on many of the Court's politically charged 5–4 decisions...
, and Justice Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
, dissented. Alito wrote that the Court had misinterpreted the Sixth Amendment's protection of the right to counsel to protect a defendant's choice of counsel, when he believed the text and history of the Amendment indicated that it merely protected a defendant's right to assistance that was as effective as his choice of counsel would be. Even if it protected choice of counsel, it did not mean that violation of this right should be grounds for automatic reversal. Instead, because the Constitution lacked directives as to how such rights should be enforced, the Court should follow the Congressional directive to apply harmless error analysis.