The right to counsel is something that a defendant should be allowed as our Sixth Amendment right states. Having this right, give the defendant their own choice as to who can represent them, when they are paying for it on their own accord. The Sixth Amendment rights state,
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”(Book). …show more content…
Cuauhtémoc Gonzalez-Lopez, Gonzalez-Lopez was charged with conspiracy to distribute one hundred kilograms marijuana in the United State District Court of Eastern District of Missouri. Mr. Gonzalez-Lopez’s family hired defense attorney John Fahle to represent him in court. But, Gonzalez-Lopez decided to hire an out of state defense attorney from California by the name of Joseph Low. The understanding of Gonzalez-Lopez was that John Fahle and Joseph Low would work together. The District Court had initially let the two defense attorneys work together on the case under the pro hac vice, but later revoked the permission due to cross examination of one witness when Joseph Low was passing notes to John Fahle. After this occurred, Gonzalez-Lopez wanted to only use one Joseph Low as his defense attorney in the case in which he informed John Fahle. Joseph Low sent another request for pro hac vice, to the District Court in which the United States District court of Eastern District of Missouri and United States Court of Appeals Eighth District both denied Low’s request. After this entire situation occurred, attorney John Fahle filed a complaint against Joseph Low that he violated the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct by contacting Gonzalez-Lopez while Fahle was representing already. John Fahle submitted a withdrawal from the case, which was granted, but also the court did not let Joseph Low represent him in court since Low have violated …show more content…
Trial errors can be harmless if the government can show beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not contribute to the verdict, which is important for the court to prove it, but is does not mean the case will have an automatic turn over or reversal. Structural error requires or warrants an automatic reversal. Structural errors account for a small number of all errors, and even most constitutional errors are trial errors anyways. They still as subject to review of the fact to determine if there was an error of trial or structural. In this case, we see an issue with trial court error as the individual wanted a specific lawyer and the judge denied the defendant Gonzalez-Lopez that right. Now, do I think the case should be reversed? No, the individual was able to choose another lawyer of his choosing and lost his case. I believe it would be hard to prove that Joseph Low would have come to trial with a different strategy or different
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”(Book). …show more content…
Cuauhtémoc Gonzalez-Lopez, Gonzalez-Lopez was charged with conspiracy to distribute one hundred kilograms marijuana in the United State District Court of Eastern District of Missouri. Mr. Gonzalez-Lopez’s family hired defense attorney John Fahle to represent him in court. But, Gonzalez-Lopez decided to hire an out of state defense attorney from California by the name of Joseph Low. The understanding of Gonzalez-Lopez was that John Fahle and Joseph Low would work together. The District Court had initially let the two defense attorneys work together on the case under the pro hac vice, but later revoked the permission due to cross examination of one witness when Joseph Low was passing notes to John Fahle. After this occurred, Gonzalez-Lopez wanted to only use one Joseph Low as his defense attorney in the case in which he informed John Fahle. Joseph Low sent another request for pro hac vice, to the District Court in which the United States District court of Eastern District of Missouri and United States Court of Appeals Eighth District both denied Low’s request. After this entire situation occurred, attorney John Fahle filed a complaint against Joseph Low that he violated the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct by contacting Gonzalez-Lopez while Fahle was representing already. John Fahle submitted a withdrawal from the case, which was granted, but also the court did not let Joseph Low represent him in court since Low have violated …show more content…
Trial errors can be harmless if the government can show beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not contribute to the verdict, which is important for the court to prove it, but is does not mean the case will have an automatic turn over or reversal. Structural error requires or warrants an automatic reversal. Structural errors account for a small number of all errors, and even most constitutional errors are trial errors anyways. They still as subject to review of the fact to determine if there was an error of trial or structural. In this case, we see an issue with trial court error as the individual wanted a specific lawyer and the judge denied the defendant Gonzalez-Lopez that right. Now, do I think the case should be reversed? No, the individual was able to choose another lawyer of his choosing and lost his case. I believe it would be hard to prove that Joseph Low would have come to trial with a different strategy or different