Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

United States v. Gonzales-Lopez

Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth AmendmentCounsel of ChoiceStructural ErrorHarmless ErrorSixth Amendmentcounsel of choiceretained counsel

Facts

Respondent was charged in the Eastern District of Missouri with conspiracy to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. After initially being represented by John Fahle, respondent hired California attorney Joseph Low and wanted Low to serve as his sole counsel. The district court repeatedly denied Low's applications for admission pro hac vice, ultimately explaining that it believed Low had violated a professional-conduct rule; Low was also barred from sitting at counsel table or communicating with trial counsel during trial. Respondent was tried and convicted while represented by substitute counsel, and the Government did not dispute in the Supreme Court that the district court had erroneously deprived respondent of his counsel of choice.

Issue

When a trial court erroneously deprives a criminal defendant of his retained counsel of choice, must the defendant show prejudice, or is the Sixth Amendment violation complete without such a showing? If the violation is complete, is the error subject to harmless-error review?

Rule

The Sixth Amendment includes the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him. When a defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by his retained counsel of choice, the violation is complete without any additional showing of prejudice, and the error is structural, not subject to harmless-error analysis.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Denver, Nolan Price was charged with wire fraud. He paid to retain Maya Sethi, a lawyer from Arizona, but the district judge mistakenly concluded that a local admission rule barred her appearance and required Nolan to proceed with different retained counsel, who performed skillfully at trial.

On appeal, Nolan argues that his Sixth Amendment right was violated even though substitute counsel was competent. What is the strongest response under the governing rule?

Explanation. The Sixth Amendment includes the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him. When a court erroneously prevents representation by retained counsel of choice, the violation is complete upon that wrongful denial. No additional showing of deficient performance by substitute counsel, overall unfairness, or likely different outcome is required. (Derived from United States v. Gonzales-Lopez (2006).)