## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J OSE G AY A an d S ALV AD O R R OSALES, D ef endants-A ppell ants
.
A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No s. 06 CR896, 896- 2

—Wayn e R. Ander sen, Judge
.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 11, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UNE 14, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R O OK, Chie f Judg e, a nd C UD AH Y an d P OSNER , Circ uit Ju dg es . P OS NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . The defendants were tr i ed to

g ethe rb y a j ur y, a nd c o nv ic te d, o fa numbe r o fc o ca i ne o ff en se s. Ga y a was s en te nc ed to 3 0 y ea r s i n prison and Rosal es to 2 0. The appeal s pre sent onl y pr oce du ra l questi ons. Gaya co m pla i ns abo ut the j ud ge’ s deni alo fhi s r equest, m ade as the tr i al w as a b out to sta rto n the m or ni ng o f M a y 6 , 2 0 0 8 , f o r a c o nt i nu a nc e t o e nabl e him to fi nd a2 N os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626

n ew law ye r. T h e g ov er n m en t a rg u es th at h e w aiv ed h is obj ecti on t o the j ud ge’ s r uling be cause w hen the j ud ge to l d h i m hi s o nl y c ho i c e wa s b e t we e n s t a y i ngwi th his law yer and repres en ting him self, he ch ose th e form er . To w aiv e a cla im is to giv e itu p vo lu n ta rily. It is do u b tfu l thatGaya did that

. The deni alo fhi s r equest f or a con tinu an ce f o r ce d hi m t o c ho o se b etwee n s ta y i ng wi thhi s cur r en t l awy era nd r epr es en tinghim sel f; he sensibl y c hose the l ess ero fthe tw o evi l s. I t woul d b e di ff er en t h ad h e ch an g ed hi s m i nd a nd dec i ded he w a nted to st i ck w i th hi s l aw yer . I t’ s t rue that th e j udg e sa i d t he l awy erwas “ ane xc el l en t l awy er ” an d that Gaya s ai d “Yeah, i t i s fi ne, yo ur Honor. Iwil l j ust g o wi thwhaty o u s ay . Iwi l l g o w i th[ hi s pr es en t l awy er ]

. ” But he s ai d thi s afte r the j udg e ha d s ai d: “ Ia m n o t wi l l i ng to p ut offthe trial for y o u a s a result of th is. ” So Ga ya’s o n l y c h o i c e wa s b e t we e n r e p r e s e n t i n gh i ms e l fa nd sti cki ng with hi s cur re nt l aw yer . The f act that he chos e th e l a t te r c ou rs e d oe sn ’t m ea n h e w as ab an d on in g h is re q u es t t h at th e jud ge gra n t a c on tin u an c e t o e n ab le him to find a new l aw yer. W hi chi s no t to s aytha t he w as en ti tl ed to a c o nt i nua nc e . H a d h e t o l d th e j u d g e , “ Id o n ’ tl i k e myc o u r t
- a ppoi nted counsel ; I w an t y ou t o appointDavi d Boie s t o r epr es en t m e, ” an d the j ud ge ha d r epl i ed th athe w oul dn ’ t do that and ther ef or e Gaya had to choo se betwe ens ti ck i ng wi th hi s ex i st i ngc o uns ela nd r epr es en ting hi m sel f, Gaya c ou l d argue o n appeal thatthe j ud ge s h o u l d h a v e a p p o i n t e d B o i e s , b u t o f c o u r s e the a r g um ent woul d fa i l

. A nd si m i l ar l y in thi s ca se, tho ughN os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626 3 Gaya pre ser ved hi s a rgu m en t that he w as enti tl ed to a conti nuance the j ud ge w as j usti fi ed i n rej ecting i t. Gaya did notr equest the con ti nuance unti l the m or ni ng o n w hi ch the tr i albeg an, wh i ch ( unu sual l y) was se ve ra l days a fterthe j ury had been pi cked. That had to be to o late, i n th e absen ce of re allyexce pti onalci rcum sta nces, to e n t it le him to a continu an ce to seek a n ew l aw yer. Eve oftr i ali s usual l y t oo l ate. U n ited St ates v. Harris , 39 4 F .3d 54 3, 55 2 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); U nited S tat e s v. Sc hm i dt, 10 5 F .3d 82 , 89 (2 d C ir. 19 97 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. R ich ar ds on , 89 4 F

. 2d 49 2, 4 96

- 97( 1s t Ci r . 1 99 0)

. To g r an t such a r eque st afte r a j ur y i s pi ck ed woul d, by m ar o o ni ng the j ury, enab le a d e fe n d a nt un ha p p y w ith th at j ury to try h is lu c k w ith a n ew on e, sin c e t h e t im e r eq u ire d for h im to fi nd a new l aw yerand f orthatlaw ye r to ge t up to speed w oul d be t oo gr eatf orthe or i gi nal ju ry to be k eptwai tingf o r t r i alt o b eg i n. The c i r cumst an ce s woul d no t ha ve j us ti fi ed g r an ting th e requ est even if a j ury h ad n’t bee n p icked

. Ga ya’s l aw yer, wh o w as cour t- appoint ed, had fi l ed hi s no ti ce ofappeara nce i n the dist ri ct c ourto n De cem ber6, 20 07, an d the t r ia l b egan on M ay 6, 2008

. H e w as G aya’s se c on d law ye r; t h e first h ad be en ap p oin te d sh or tly after his arrest, w hich occu rred exa c tly one year before the seco nd l aw yer fi l ed hi s noti ce of appearance. ( Gaya i s no w o n hi s f ourth la w yer. ) Gaya had app ear ed twice i n cour t be f or e M ay 6

— at a s tatus hear i ng on A p ril 10 an d whenthe j ur y was se l ec te d o n Apr i l 3 0. And he had ha d a mpl e o pp o r t un i t y du r i ngthe p r e v i o us fi ve m onths to express to the cour t hi s di ssa ti sf acti on with hi s l aw yerand desi re f ora diff er ent o ne. H e coul d have4 N os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626 d one that even i f M ay 6 ha d been his f irst cou rt ap p earance; had he tol d the l aw yer at any ti m e that he was diss ati sfi ed w i th hi m and w anted hi s di ssa ti sf acti on conve yed to the cour t, the l aw ye r w ou ld have b een dutybo und t o c o m pl y . The r ea so ns tha t Gay a g av e th e j udg e f o r hi s di ss at i sf actio n wi ththe l awy er( th e law yer “w asn ’t ba s in g any th ing on m y case. H e w asn ’t defe nd i ng m e. H e wasn’tte l l i ng ab out f ortr i al, nothi ng. Basi ca l l y a l l the que st i o ns he was a sk i ngme, who i s th e keywitnes s a nd i fI w anted to co oper ate ”) do notappear to have been ofr ecento ri gi n. N othi ng had happened o n the e ve o ft r i al to i nduc e a dr amat i c ch an g e o fmin d ab ou t t h e la w ye r’s su ita b ility . “T ria l j u d ge s n ec es sa rily re quir e a gr eatdealo fl atitud e i n schedul i ng tr i al s. N o t th e l ea sto fthe i r problem s i s th ato fa ss embl i ngthe wi tn es se s, l awy er s, a nd j ur o r s atthe sam e pla ce a t th e sa m e ti m e, a nd thi s bur denc o uns el s ag ains t co nt i nuances except fo r com pel l i ng r eas ons. Consequentl y, br oad disc re ti on m u st b e g ra nted tr i alco urts o n m att er s o f continuances ; o nl y a n unreas oni ng and arbi tr ar y ‘ i nsi ste n c e u p on ex p ed itio u sn e ss in t h e fa c e o f a j u st ifiab le re quest f ordel ay’ vi ol ate s the r i gh t to the a ssi sta nce o f counsel

. ” M or r i s v. Sl appy, 46 1 U. S

. 1 , 1 1- 12 ( 19 83 ) , quo ting U ngar v. Sarafi te, 376 U

. S. 575, 589 (1964 ). The case bea rs a superfi ci alr es em bl ance t o U nited Sta tes v . Sellers , N o. 09- 2516 , 20 11 W L 19357 35 at * 3- * 9 ( 7th Ci r . M ay1 9, 2 01 1) , whi chr ev er se d the denial of a m oti on f ora conti nu an ce s ought as i n thi s ca se to enabl e the defendant to o btai n new co unsel

. The m oti on was fi l ed o nl y fi ve da y s be f or e tr i alwas s ett o b eg i n, b ut a j ur y h ad not b e e n pi c k e d a nd the j ud g e ’ s g r o un ds f or th e de ni al, whi chi nc l ude d c o m pl aint s ab o uttheN os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626 5 be ha vi o r o fa di ff er en t l awy er in an unr el at ed ca se a nd annoya nce that the j ud ge had cancel ed hi s a tte nd ance at the S eve nt h C i rcui t j ud i ci alco nfe re nce i n or der t o conduct the tr i al, se em ed arbitra ry . M or eov er, the tr i al had been s cheduled t o be he l d on ly tw o m onths after the de f e nd a ntwa s a r r a i g ne d. Ro sa l es , o ur s ec o nd a ppel l an t, a ls o c o m pl ains abo ut rep resen tation. H e testifi e d a ttri al, and shortly before the e nd o fthe fi rs t day ofhi s t est i m ony the pr ose cutor w ho was cr oss - exam i ni ng hi m tr i ed to sho w hi m a gov ernm en t ex hibi t co ns i st i ngo fpho ne r ec o r ds, i nt en di ng to unde r m i ne Ro sa l es ’ de ni alo fb eingGa y a’ s co ca i ne su ppl i er . Ro sa l es ’ l awy ero bj ec te d o n the g r ou nd th atthe record s shou ld h ave be en s h o w n to th e d efense earli er. The pros ecuto r re sponded thattheywere not evi dence but m er el y pr opose d i m peachm ent m ateri al s. The j ud ge ad j ou rn ed th e t ria l for th e d ay an d sa id h e w ou ld hearar gum ent about the phone re cor ds and res ol ve th e di spu te o ve r the m whenc o ur t r ec o nv en ed th e ne xt m o r ni ng . He t o l d Ro sa l es ’ l aw yer “ do n’ t di sc us s th e subj ect [w ith R osa l es] , don’ t di scuss the s ubstance o f hi s t est i m ony w i th him , incl ud i ng this , ” the “thi s” doubtl ess r efer ri ng to the phone re cor ds. The j ud ge add ed th atthe l awy er co ul d t el l hi s cl i en t th at“ I ’ ve [ i

. e. , the l aw yerhas ] a sk ed thatyo u [ Rosal es] ta ke a l oo k a t th i ng s [th e pho ne r ec o r ds] b efo r e y o u t es ti fy, b utthe j ud ge say s i t’ s i n the m i dd le ofcr oss - exam i nati on a nd as he does i n eve ryo thercas e, [ the j ud ge has] f orbid den m e to d i scuss the s ubstance o fte sti m ony i n the m i dst o f c ro ss -ex am in at ion .”6 N os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626 That ni ght Ro sal es’ l aw yerfil ed a m em or andu m with th e co ur t ar g ui ng th at hi s cl i en t ha d a r i g ht und er the Si xth A m endm ent t o dis c u ss w i th hi m the substa nce o f the phone re cor ds, al ong w i th oth er , unspeci fi ed m att er s, dur i ngthe ov erni g htr ec es s. The j udg e di dn’ t r es po nd to th e m em o ( he pro babl y di dn ’ t s ee i t t i l l the next day) b u t in ste ad rul ed w hen tr i alr esum ed that he was bar ri ng al l cr oss - exam i na tio n base d on the phone re cor d s. R os ale s w as n ev er as ke d ab ou t t h em atth e t ria l. H e a rgues that e ven i fthe j ud ge had b ar re d h i m fro m di sc us singwi th h is l awy erj us t th e pho ne r ec o r ds, the j ud gm ent m ust be re ver sed, though th at er ro r

— i fi t was an er ro r ( i t wasn’t )

— was ha r m l es s squa r ed; the pho ne re cor ds w er e nev erused by the gov er nm ent a t the tr i al and anyw ay the e vi dence ofRosa l es’ gui l t of a ll char ges w as ove rwhelm i ng. The r eas on i t wa sn ’t an er ro r i s that al l th e j ud ge w as doi ng was postponi ng di scussi on o f th e pho ne r ec o r ds be twe enl awyer a nd c l i en t unt i l he w as pr epare d to hearar gum ent o n w hetherto al l ow th em to b e us ed to i m pea chRo sa l es ’ t es ti m ony , a nd the i ssu e b ec am e m oo t when the j ud ge deci ded notto al l ow them to be used f orthatpurpo se or, as i t turned out, any o theron e. Fo r the j ud ge afterm aki ng tha t r uling to have or dered a further re c ess in or der t o al l ow Rosal es an d hi s l awy ert o di sc us s ho w i m pea ch m en t wi ththe pho ne r ec o r ds m i g htha ve b ee n c o unt er ed ha d the j ud ge perm i tte d thei r use f orthatp urpose would have w ast ed eve ry one’ s t i m e; the i ssue had becom e a cadem i c. B ut R osales goes furt he r. H e argu es th at th e ju d ge’s r ul i ngb a r r e d all c o m m uni ca ti o n with his l awy erdur i ngN os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626 7 th e o ve r ni g htr ec es s, a nd tha t an y i m pai r m en t o fa de f en dant’s opportunity to consul t w i th hi s l aw yer, un l ess ei therutte rl y t ri vi alo r com pel l i ngl y j usti fi ed ( or, pre f er abl y, b o th )

— such as bar ri ng the defendant’s l aw yer f ro m disc ussi ng the defe nd ant’ s tes ti m ony w i th h im d u rin g a 1 5

- m in u te br ea k in th e d efe n d an t’s cr os s-e x am inati on, gi ven the “v i rtual cer tai nty that a ny co nver sati on be tw een the witnes s a nd the l aw yerwo u l d rel ate to the ongo i ng te sti m ony, ” Per ry v . Le e ke, 48 8 U.S

. 27 2, 28 3- 84 ( 1989 )

— i s a “s tr uct u ra l er ro r” nece ssi tat i ng r eve rs al eve n i fadm i tte d by e ver yo ne to be harm l ess . The opaque t er m “s tr ucturaler ro r” i s be st und er sto od as denoti ng an er ro r that can’ t ( at l eas t without i nor dinat e b ur de n o r di ffi c ul t y ) be determ ined to be harm l ess . U ni t e d S t at e s v M ar cu s , 130 S. C t
. 2159, 2165 (2010); U n ited S ta tes v. G o nz a lez -Lo pez , 54 8 U.S

. 14 0, 14 8- 51 (20 06 ); A rizon a v. Fulm inante, 499 U .S. 27 9, 30 9-1 0 (1 99 1). If at th e o p en in g oft h e t ria l in t h is c as e t h e jud ge h ad sa id to our d efend an ts “you r guilt is so obviou s tha t I ’m goi ng t o di s mi s s the j ur y, s k i p the t r i a l, a nd p r o c eed dir ectl y t o sente nc i ng, ” i t would be i m possibl e t o determ ine how certain th eir gu il t reall y w as, for i f th ere w er e a tr i al t h e gover nm ent’ s witnesse s m i ght r ecant or b e d isc re d ite d , or th e d efe n d an ts m igh t u n ex p ec te d ly tes ti fy c onvi nci ngl y. The i nquir y into the har m l ess ness ofthe er ro r in d en yin g the defendants a tr i alwould be th e t ria l. Th i s u nd e r s t a nd i ngo f“ s t r uc t ur a l e r r o r ” r e c o nc i l es the c ase s with 28 U

. S. C. § 2 111, wh i ch st ate s that “ on th e he ar i ngo fa ny a ppea l o r wri t o fc er ti or ar i i n a ny8 N os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626

case , the cour t s hal l gi ve j ud gm ent afte r an exam i nati on of the re cor d without re gar d t o er ro rs or defe cts w h i ch do not affect the substa nti alr i ghts ofthe parti es”

— w hi ch i s t o sayunl ess ther e i s “ a rea sonab l e pr obab i l i ty that the e rr oraff ecte d the o utcom e o fthe tr i al

. ” U nited Sta tes v . Mar c us , sup ra , 1 3 0 S

. C t
. a t2 1 6 4 ; s e e a l s o F e d

. R

. C r i m. P. 52

. I fan “ er ro r m ight i nfe ct a n enti re tr i al, ” 1 30 S. Ct. a t 2 1 6 6 , a s s e s s i ng ho w the t r i a l mi g ht ha v e g one had the e rr ornotbee n com m i tte d m i ght wel l be i m possibl e. Thus , a s th e S upr eme Co ur t ex pl aine d i n U n i ted Sta tes v. G o nz a lez -Lo pez , sup ra , w i th speci fi c re f er ence to i nfr i ngem ent o fthe right to co unsel, the J usti ces base a fi nd i ng “o fst ructur aler ro r up on the di ffi cul ty ofas ses si ng th e eff ec t o f th e er r o r . ” 54 8 U. S

. at 14 9 n. 4. “D i ff er en t attorne y s wi l l pur su e di ff er en t st r at eg i es wi thr eg ar d to i nv es ti g at i o n a nd di sc o ve r y, de ve l o pm en t o fthe theo ryo fde f e ns e , s e l e c t i o n o fthe j ur y, p r e s e nt a t i o n of th e w itness es, an d style ofw itness exam inatio n a n d j ury ar gum ent. A nd the choi ce o fat torney wil l aff ect w hether and on wh at ter m s the def en dant coo perat es w i th the pr ose cuti on, pl ea bar gai ns, o r deci de s ins tea d to go to tr i al

. I n l i gh t of these m yr i ad aspect s o fr epres entati on, . . . i t i s i m possibl e t o know w hat di ff er ent c hoi ces th e r ej ec te d c o uns elwoul d have m ad e, a nd the n t o qua nt i fy th e i mp a c to fth o s e d i ff e r e n tc h o i c e s o n th e o u t c o me o fthe pr o cee di ng s. M an y c o uns el ed dec i si o ns , i nc l udi ng th o se i nv o l vi ngpl ea b ar g ains a nd coop er at i o n wi ththe g o v e r nme nt, do no t e v e n c o nc e r n the c o nd uc t o f the t ri al at all. H ar m le ss -er ro r an aly sis in s u c h a c on te x t w ou ld be a specul ati ve i nquir y i nto w hat m i ght have oc c u rr ed i n an al ter na te u n i ver se. ” Id

. at15 0. I n other w or ds,N os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626 9 though the co unsel the defe nd ant ha d m ay have ap p ea r ed to do a pe r f ec tl y fi ne j o b, the c o uns elhe w anted m i ght ha ve don e b ett er, and m aybe ev en go tte n his cli en t off

. This i s a te nuous bas i s f ordi sti ngui shi n g, as t he cas es do, betw een a te m p or ar y inter rupti on i n re prese ntati on ( t he o v e r n i g h tr e c e s s i n th i s c a s e ) , o n th e o n e h a n d, an d i ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns elwhenthe r e i s no i nter rupti on, o n the othe r. The defen dant w ho has a l awy er, e ve n a n i nc o m pet en t o ne , mustto es tabl i sha vi ol ati on o fhi s co nsti tuti onalr i ght t o eff ecti ve ass i sta nc e o fc o uns elpr o ve tha t he was preju di ce d b y the law ye r’s in c om p et en c e, St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U .S . 6 68 , 687, 690 -96 (19 84 ); St ephe ns on v. Wi l s on , 61 9 F. 3d 664, 67 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)

— a nd tha t ’ s a l o tha r de r to do th an opp osing a p rosecu tor’s clai m of ha rm less error, fo r the p rosecu tor m us t prov e the harm lessne ss of a const i tuti onaler ro r

— an d p ro ve it be yo n d a r e a so n ab le doubt. Com pare M a ssaro v. U n i t e d Sta tes , 53 8 U.S

. 50 0, 5 0 5 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , wi th C hap m an v. C alif ornia , 38 6 U.S

. 18 , 24

- 26 (1967). The Co ur t i n G o nz a lez -Lo pez gr ounded th e d i ff er ence in treatm en t betw een d en ialof t he right to coun sel ofone’s ch o i ce a n d d e n i a l o fth e r i g h tt o e ff e c t i v e c o u n s e l o n t he propos i ti on that co unsel cannotbe sai d to be ineff ecti ve u nl ess hi s perf or m ance i s l i kel y to have cause d h is cl i ent t o l ose the case . 54 8 U.S

. 14 6- 47. I fthe dist i ncti on se ems e xc es si ve l y c o nc eptua l, t wo pr ac ti ca l r ea so ns su pport it: j udg es c o ns i dera j udg e’ s er r o r mor e se r i o us than a l aw yer ’ s e rr or ; and a l aw ye r’ s i ncom petence10 N os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626 i s ma n i f e s t e d i n s p e c i fi c a c t s a n d o mi s s i o n s ( mo r e c o mm onl y the l att er, such a s f ai l ure to conduct an a dequ ate i nvest i gat i on) , a nd j ud ges bel i eve them sel ves abl e t o ass ess the l i kel y i m pact o fspec ifi c ac ts oro m i ssi ons on th e o u tc om e o f th e t ria l. I n a nye v e ntthe cas es, wh e the r r i g ht l y o r wr o ng l y, do dee m i nt e r r up t i o ns i n o pp o r t un i t i e s f o r c o mm un i c a t i on between law yer a nd cl i ent c ate gor i cal l y g ra verthan i ncom petent conduct ofthe defe nse

— d e e m th em ca n d idates f or str uctural er ro r and he nce i nsul ate d from an i nquir y i nto w hether the i nter rupti on w as har m l ess . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa nt os , 201 F.3d 953 , 966 (7th C ir. 2000); U nite d S ta te s v. Tri um ph C apital Group, Inc. , 48 7 F

. 3d 12 4, 13 1 ( 2 d C ir. 20 07 ); U nite d State s v. M cLaugh li n , 16 4 F. 3d 1, 4 ( D.C . C i r. 19 98)

. That i s why, r atherthan saying th at a 15-m inu te interru p tion is a h arm less error, th e co ur ts t en d t o c all it a “ tr i vi al ” vi o l at i o n o fthe r i g ht to c o uns el, a s i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tr i um ph Capi t al Gr oup, Inc. , sup ra , 487 F.3d at 134 -35, w hich ad d s tha t it is “very diff er ent fro m a harm l ess er ro r i nquir y. ” Id

. a t 13 4, quo ting P eterson v. Willia m s, 8 5 F

. 3d 39 , 4 2 ( 2d Ci r . 1996). But w h at ’s m ea n t, as th e t w o c as es j u st cit ed m ak e c lea r, is that the f act that the a p p el l ate co urt i s co nfi dent that th e defen dan t woul d ha ve be en co nv i ct ed ev en i f th e er ro r h ad not occur re d does no t e xcuse the er ro r. I t ca n be e xc us ed o nl y i fi t was to o s li g htt o i m pai r the de f en dant’s r i ght t o counselsi gni fi cantl y. W e r e the que s t i o n i n thi s c a s e wh eth e r the i nt e r r up ti on i n the opportunity f orl aw yer - cl i ent c om m unica ti on h a d e v e n a r e mo t e l i k e l i h o o d o fc h a n g i n gth e o u t c o meN os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626 11

o fthe t r i al, the a ns wer woul d b e ane m pha ti c “n o ”; the ev i den ce ofRo sa l es ’ g ui l t was o ve r whel m i ngt o the po i nto fb eingc o nc l usi ve . Buttha t woul d b e co nv en tional harm less-error an alysis. Th e ana lysi s o f ha rm appli cabl e t o a vi ol ati on o fthe ri ght t o coun se l f ocuse s o n the i m pac t of the i nt er r upt i o n o n the abi l i tyo fthe defen dan t’ s l awy ert o r epr es en t his cli en t, e ve n i fthe outco m e was f or eor daine d

— eve n i fC l ar ence Darr ow and Perr y M ason com bi ned coul dn ’ t hav e o btai ned an ac q u i t t a l o f th i s d e f e n d a n t f r o m a r e a s o n a b l e j u r y . To m ake thi s a sse ssm en t i n the prese nt cas e we’d have to de t e r mi ne wh e the r the di s c us s i o ns tha tR o s a l es’ l awy erm i g htha ve ha d wi thhi s cl i en t dur i ngthe ove rni ght r eces s a t which he cl ai m s t o h av e be en enj oi ned to si l ence coul d h av e al ter ed Rosal es’ r esponse s w h en cr os s-e x a m i n a tio n res u m ed th e n ex t d ay , or in o th e r wo r d s wh e th e r th e a n s we r s h e g a v e th en mig ht have been diff er ent had he disc u ss ed w i th hi s l aw yer the for thcom in g cro ss- exam i nati on ( w i thi n the l i m i tati ons ofper m i tte d c oac hi ng, on wh i ch se e G eders v. U nited Sta tes , 4 25 U

. S. 80, 89-91 an d n. 3 (1976); Serra no v. Fisch er, 41 2 F

. 3d 29 2, 3 02 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 5) ) dur ing the o ve r ni g ht re cess . W e nee d n’t run this hare to th e groun d . T h e j ud ge’s er r o r, i f e r r o r the r e wa s , wa s i nv i t e d b y the ha rpi ng o f Rosal es’ l aw yero n the pho n e re c or ds. “[ A ] party m ay not ‘ i nvi te’ er ro r and then ar gue o n ap p ea l thatthe er ro r for w h ich h e w as res p on sib le e n tit les h im to relie f.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 26 F. 3d 669, 677 (7th Cir. 1994); see al so U nite d State s v. R osby, 4 54 F. 3d 670, 67 7 ( 7th C ir. 2006); U nited Sta tes v. Fulf o rd, 980 F. 2d 1110 , 11 1612 N os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626 (7t h C ir. 19 92 ); U nite d State s v. Je w el l , 61 4 F

. 3d 911, 91 9- 20 ( 8th Ci r . 2 01 0)

. Tha t i s an a fortio ri c as e o fw a i ve r, U nited Sta tes v. Q uin o nes , 511 F.3d 28 9, 32 1 (2 d C ir. 20 07 ); U nited St at e s v. Ham i l t on , 4 99 F

. 3d 73 4, 7 36 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 7) , a nd ther e i s no r eas on t o exem pt “st ructur aler ro rs . ” Johns on v. U nited Sta tes , 52 0 U .S. 46 1, 46 8-7 0 (1 99 7); U nited Sta tes v. U nde r wood, 13 0 F

. 3d 1225 , 1228- 29 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) (dissen t from de nial ofrehearing en ban c). Read l i ter al l y, the j ud ge’ s r uling di d forb i d Rosal es’ l aw yerto di scu ss the s ubstance o fthe case , and not j ust th e pho ne r ec o r ds, wi thhi s cl i en t dur i ngthe r ec es s. But th e r uling sh o ul d no t be r ea d l i te r al l y . I t was o r ala nd spo nt an eo us , an d th e pho ne r ec o r ds wer e i ts top ic a nd tr i gge r. I fRosa l es’ l aw yerhad unrel at ed m att er s that he w an ted to di sc us s wi thhi s cl i en t ( o r tha t he tho ug ht hi s cl i en t want ed to di scuss w i thhi m ) dur i ngthe ove rni ght r eces s, he s houl d hav e to ld the j ud ge that, rem ind ing him of how dim ly th e cou rts look on inte rrupti ons ofo p p or tuni ti es f orco m m unica ti on be tw een a crim inal defen d an t and his l aw yer. W he n the j ud g e ann o un c e d the r e c e s s , the l a wy e r s a i d: “I ’ m notgo i ng to gi ve m y c l i ent a ny i nfo rm ati on on how he s ho uld an swe r [ th e pr o se cut o r ’ s que st i o n abo utthe phone re cor ds], but Ido a sk that Ibe abl e t o m eetwith hi m and ta lk about thi s”

— th e “thi s” r efer r i ngt o the phone re cor ds. The pro secuto r

— ri ghtl y obj ecting to a w i t n e s s ’ s b e i n gs h o wno r t o l d th e c o nt e n t s o fa n i mpeach i ng docum ent b ef or e be i ng as ked the questi on that m i ght provo ke an answer that the docum ent c oul d be u se d to im p ea c h, U ni t e d S ta te s v. St e ve ns , 98 5 F

. 2d 1175 ,N os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626 13 11 80 (2d C ir. 19 93 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Randolph , 45 6 F

. 2d 132, 136 ( 3d Cir

. 19 72) ; se e U nited Sta tes v. C erro , 77 5 F

. 2d 908, 914- 15 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85)

— sugge ste d that the di scussi on be postponed to the next m or ni ng, befo re R osa l es w as cro sse xa mi ne d ab o utthe p ho ne r e c o r ds

. The j udg e a g r e e d, butthe di sc us si o n was ne ver hel d b ec au se he r ul ed th e next m or n in g that the pro secuto r coul dn ’ t a sk Rosal es a b o u tth e m. Right afterthe j ud ge had fo rbi dd en the l aw yerto di sc us s th e pho ne r ec o r ds wi thhi s cl i en t d ur i ngthe ove rni ght r eces s, sa yi ng “don’ t di scu ss the s ubstance o f hi s t est i m ony w i th h im , incl ud i ng thi s” ( the phone re cor ds), the l aw ye r ask ed w hetherhe was “e xcl ud ed fro m sp e a k i n g t o m y c lien t a t a ll? If I d on ’t t alk to h im ab o ut th i s , j u s tab o u tth e p r o c e s s a n d th e wi t n e s s e s . ” T he j ud ge re pli ed: “N o, Ithink y ou can sayto hi m that I ’ ve ask ed yo u tak e a l ook at thi ngs b ef or e y ou t est i fy, but the j ud ge say s i t’s in t he m i dd l e o fcr oss - exam i nati on a nd as he doe s i n eve ryo thercas e, he’ s f orbi dd en m e to di sc us s th e su bs ta nc e o fh i s te st i m o ny i n the m i dstofc r o ss - ex ami na ti o n. ” The l awy ers ai d “ Oka y, ” but th en adde d: “S o I ca n at l ea st ex pl ain to hi m what ’ s g o i ng on, ” a nd the j ud ge sai d “Yeah” and the l aw yerr esponded “Okay ” a nd then the j ud ge add ed: “yo u’ve bee n ask ed to be abl e t o re vi ew docu m ents w i th hi m that yo u th in k [ t h e p ro se c u to r] m igh t w ish to u se , bu t I sa id i t’ s i n the m i dd l e o fcr oss, n o, and then we’l l se e what h ap p en s.” S o the o nl y thi ngc l ea r l y f o rbi ddenwas di sc us si ng the phone re cor ds. Y et that ni ght the l aw yerfi l ed a m em o-14 N os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626

ran d um w ith th e cou rt i n w h ich he stat ed his un d ers t a nd i ng tha t he wa s f o rb i dde n t o di s c us s “ a ny m att er re l ati ng to th e substance o f[ hi s cl i ent’ s] te sti m ony” o ve r ni g hta nd a r g ue d tha t th e pr o hibit i o n v i o l at ed th e Si xth A m endm ent. That was to o lat e. The l aw yerm ust h a v e kn o wnth a tth e j u d g e w o u l d n ’ ts e e t h e me mo unt i l the mor ni ng

— w h en th e o ve rn igh t re c es s w ou ld be over. T h e e x c h an g e b et w ee n j u d ge an d law ye r ov er w h at if anythi ng co uld be di scusse d du rin g the o ver ni ght r eces s i s r i ch i n am bi gui ty. But the l aw yerh im se l fse em s t o th i nktha t i t was mai nl y, mayb e en ti r el y, a nd i n a ny e v e n tc r i t i c a l l y ab o u tth e p h o ne r e c o r d s . I n th e me mo th at he s ubmi tt ed to the di st r i ctc o ur t th atni g hthe ag ain as ke d to be allow ed to d isc u s s t h em w ith h is cl i en t. And i n h i s r epl y b rie fi n thi s co ur t he s ay s th athe “w as si m plya sk i ngf o r th e a bil i tyt o he arwhathi s cl i en t ha d to say abou t the ph one record s” (em p ha s is add ed ). Any di scuss i o n o fs ubj ec ts unr el at ed to the pho ne re cor ds probabl y would have bee n i nci dental, o r eve n acci dental, f orh is op en ing br i efsa ys “ther e i s no way to know w hat info rm ati on would have bee n exch anged o r w h at ot h er su b j ec ts w ou ld h av e b ee n d isc u ss ed h ad th is co nv e r s a t i o n r e g a r di ngthe p ho ne r e c o r ds a nd o ther substa nti ve m att er s re l ate d t o tes ti m ony and st ra tegy o cc ur r ed d uri ngthe o ve r ni g htr ec es s. ” H e i ns i st ed an d st i l l i ns i st s o n h i s r i g htt o h ave di sc us se d the pho ne re c or d s w ith h is c lien t. (H e h ad n o su c h r igh t, as w e s aid .) Pa r ti cul ar l y t el l i ngi s an ex ch an g e be twe enhi m a nd the j ud g e r i g hta ft e r the j ud ge s a i d tha tthe p ho ne r e c o r dsN os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626 15

co ul d no t be us ed to i m pea chRos al es . The j udg e as k ed th e law ye r w h et h er th er efo re th e c ro ss -ex am in at ion o f h is cl i ent c oul d procee d and the l aw yerr esponded: “Yes, I th in k w e s h ou ld go a h ea d w ith M r. R os ale s’ t es tim on y.” Evi den tl y t he l awy er ’ s o nl y c o nc ern h ad be enwi ththe phone re cor ds, for w i th the m o ut o fthe case he e vi nced no d esi re f orany add i ti onalti m e f orco nfe rr i ng with hi s c l i e ntb e f o r e the t r i a l r e s ume d. I n thi s cour t he f ast ens on one pai r of w or ds u ttere d by the j ud ge

— “inc l udi ngthi s” ( “thi s” mean i ngthe phone re cor ds)

— to ar gue that the j ud ge f orbade hi m to disc uss a ny te sti m ony w i th hi s cl i ent duri ng the r eces s. Bu t had he b een pl anni ng to di scuss othe r m att er s with hi s cl i ent he sho uld have sa i d to the j ud ge: “I ’ l l st ay com ple tel y a w ay f ro m the phon e re cor ds, as yo u’ve dir ecte d, bu t I’d l i ke perm i ssi on

— a n d Ic o n s i d e r i tmy cli en t’ s r i g htunde r the S i xth Am en dm en t

— t o di s cuss w i th m y c l i ent t est i m ony unrel ate d to th e re c or ds. ” A j ud g e ’ s s l i p o fth e t o n g u e , f a t a l i ft r e a t e d a s a r u l i ng but ea si l y c or rec ted by the l aw yeradver sel y a ff ecte d by it, i s not a revers ibl e error. Rosal es com pla i ns, fi nal l y, ab ou t the se ntence. H e was g i ve n a s en te nc e enh ance m en t be ca us e o fa pr ev i o us dr ug c o nv i c t i o n tha t the g o v e r nme nt de s c r ib e d a s a convi cti on o f“m anufa cturing/ del i ver i ng co cai ne. ” In f act, tho ugh tha th a d b e e n the c ha r g e , the c o nv i c t i o n wa s f or th e l es se r i nc l ude d offense o fpo ss es si o n o fc o ca i ne . But the s entence s ta ted i n the gov er nm ent’ s s ubm i ssi on d escribing R osales’ prior offense w as acc ura te, an d before hi s se nt en ci ngf o r hi s cur r en t o ff en se the g o ve rnm en t16 N os. 09

- 4055 , 10

- 1626

mov e d t o a men d i t s s ub m i s s i o n t o c o r r e c tthe de s c r i pt i o n o fthe s e nt e nc e f o r the p r i o r c o nv i c t i o n. 2 1 U. S. C. § 8 5 1 ( a ) ( 1 )

. T h e j u d g e al l o we d th e a me n d me n ta n d i mposed the enhancem ent. The go ve rn m ent’ s e rr orwas beyo nd har m l ess

— it w as u tt er ly in c on se q u en tia l. A FFI RMED
.

6- 14- 11