United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
Gonzalez-Lopez was convicted in a federal court in Missouri of conspiring to distribute drugs. On appeal, he argued that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by denying permission for the attorney of his choice to appear on his behalf. After Gonzalez-Lopez was arrested, his family hired the attorney John Fahle, who appeared at Gonzalez-Lopez's detention and arraignment hearings. Gonzalez-Lopez then contacted California attorney Joseph Low, who was not licensed to practice in Missouri, and asked Low to either defend him or assist Fahle with his defense. Low and Fahle both appeared at an evidentiary hearing in front of a magistrate judge, who had given Low provisional permission to appear in court. The magistrate judge rescinded Low's provisional permission after Low violated a court rule during the hearing.
Low subsequently filed an application for admission "pro hac vice" (on this occasion) to represent Gonzalez-Lopez, but the district court judge rejected the application without explanation. Low continued unsuccessfully to seek permission to represent Gonzalez-Lopez until after the trial, when the district court finally issued an explanation for its rejection of Low's applications. In its memorandum rejecting Low's motion, the court stated that Low's application for admission was rejected because of previous ethical violations, citing a case in which Low contacted a criminal defendant who already had representation.
On appeal, Gonzalez-Lopez argued that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by denying Low's applications without explanation. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, holding that a district court denying an attorney's application to represent a criminal defendant must provide a reason for the denial, and that the district court's eventual explanation was insufficient to meet this requirement. The court vacated Gonzalez-Lopez's conviction and remanded for a new trial.
Question Presented:
Whether a district court's denial of a criminal defendant's qualified right to be represented by counsel of choice requires automatic reversal of his conviction.
