UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

) 

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CR-04-JVB-JEM

)

RITA LAW, )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Substitution of Attorney and to Continue

Trial [DE 232], filed by Defendant Law on November 16, 2016. Defendant Law asks the Court to

continue her trial date until after March 20, to extend the deadline for filing pretrial motions, and

to allow her newly retained attorney, Gal Pissetzky, to appear. On December 2, 2016, the Court held

a hearing and denied the Motion [DE 232]. See DE 238. The Court now elaborates on its reasoning

in this written opinion.

I. The Motion to Substitute

The Court denies the Motion to Substitute because the Motion is moot. Defendant Law’s new

attorney Gal Pissetzky has already filed his Notice of Appearance [DE 231], and Defendant Law’s

existing attorney John Maksimovich has made an oral motion to withdraw, see DE 238, which the

Court has taken under advisement.

II. The Motion to Continue

Defendant Law has asked the Court to continue the trial for the following reasons: (1) her

new attorney Mr. Pissetzky needs more time to review the discovery material; (2) Mr. Pissetzky has

a state court jury trial scheduled to begin on January 17, 2017, the same day this trial is scheduled

1
to begin; and (3) Mr. Pissetzky has a four-week trial scheduled in federal court in Illinois beginning

February 6, 2017. For those reasons, Defendant Law asks for the trial to be continued to March 20,

2017, or later.

The Sixth Amendment gives a criminal defendant a “fair opportunity to secure counsel of

his own choice.” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 (1932). But the right to counsel of one’s choice

is “not absolute.” United States v. Carrera, 259 F.3d 818, 824 (7th Cir. 2001). The Sixth

Amendment does not “give an accused the power to manipulate his choice of counsel to delay the

orderly progress of his case.” United States ex rel Kleba v. McGinnis, 796 F.2d 947, 952 (7th Cir.

1986) (quotation omitted). Rather, a criminal defendant’s exercise of his right to counsel of his

choice “must at times give way to the need for a fair and efficient administration of justice.” United

States v. Cicale, 691 F.2d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1082 (1983). Put differently,

the right to be represented by the attorney of one’s choice “cannot be insisted upon to such a degree

that it obstructs the reasonable and orderly procedures of the court.” United States ex rel Spurlark

v. Wolff, 683 F.2d 216, 220 (7th Cir. 1982), vacated on rehearing on other grounds, 699 F.2d 354

(7th Cir. 1983) (en banc). The Court has “broad discretion in scheduling trials,” and only an

“unreasoning and arbitrary insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for

delay” violates the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1381 (7th Cir.

1991) (internal quotation omitted). 

Here, the instant Motion represents Defendant Law’s tenth request for a continuance since

she first appeared in Court three years ago, in December 2013. See DE 45, 82, 86, 93, 96, 126, 146,

173, 215, 232. Defendant Law’s new attorney, Mr. Pissetzky, is the tenth attorney to represent her.

All of Defendant Law’s previous lawyers—besides Mr. Maksimovich, who has orally moved to

2
withdraw but remains counsel of record for the time being—either were fired, withdrew after not

being paid, or withdrew due to Defendant Law’s noncooperation. Retained attorney William Enslen

withdrew on March 14, 2014 (see DE 48 (“Rita Law has requested that counsel withdraw”));

retained attorney Scott King withdrew on August 27, 2014 (see DE 88 (“defendant has failed to

fulfill her obligations to compensate moving counsel”)); retained counsel Nejla Lane withdrew on

February12, 2015 (see DE 105 (“moving counsel has not been paid”)); retained attorneys Sheldon

Soronsky, James Hyun, and David Kerstein withdrew on July 1, 2015 (see DE 137 (“the current

conduct, statements and attitude of Rita Law prevent the movants from adequately representing

[her]”)); and CJA-appointed attorneys Paul Stracci and Alison Benjamin withdrew on July 13, 2016

(see DE 209 (“Ms. Law has stated . . . that she does not trust undersigned counsel”)).

Indeed, as early as April 2015 the Government argued that Defendant Law was attempting

to manipulate the case’s progress by repeatedly hiring and firing attorneys. See DE 129. The Court

nonetheless gave Defendant Law the benefit of the doubt and continued the trial to October 2015.

See DE 131. In August 2015, Defendant Law moved for another continuance due to her shifting

attorney representation. See DE 146. The Government argued again that Defendant Law was

attempting to manipulate the case’s progress, but the Court granted the motion and continued the

trial to February 2016. At the final pretrial conference, Defendant Law sought a 7-month

continuance, which the Court granted to allow “plenty of time for Ms. Law’s attorneys to prepare

their case, so that no additional continuances will be needed . . . . In fact, this date is firm and will

not change absent extreme circumstances. Thus, if—as has happened numerous times before—new

attorneys want to appear on behalf of Ms. Law, they would be bound by the [August 2016] trial start

date.” See DE 174. But in July 2016 Defendant Law moved to continue the August 2016 trial date,

3
and the Court acquiesced, with a note that “further requests for continuances will be viewed with

disfavor.” See DE 219.

With that backdrop of events in mind, the Court finds that granting yet another continuance

would improperly allow Defendant Law to manipulate her choice of counsel to delay her

prosecution. Defendant Law’s right to choose her own counsel is not absolute, and the Sixth

Amendment does not entitle her to “manipulate h[er] choice of counsel to delay the orderly progress

of h[er] case.” United States ex rel Kleba v. McGinnis, 796 F.2d 947, 952 (7th Cir. 1986); United

States v. Carrera, 259 F.3d 818, 824 (7th Cir. 2001). At some point, a criminal defendant’s efforts

to delay the resolution of her case must end, and that point has been reached here. This case will

proceed to trial on January 17, 2017. If Mr. Pissetzky wishes to represent Defendant Law at that

trial, he must reschedule his other conflicts. If Mr. Pissetzky cannot represent Defendant Law, Mr.

Maksimovich will remain counsel of record. But at the recent hearing on December 2, 2016, Mr.

Pissetzky represented that he is optimistic that he will be able to reschedule his state court trial and

proceed to trial in this case on January 17, 2017.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court DENIES the Motion for Substitution of Attorney and to

Continue Trial [DE 232]. 

The trial remains scheduled for January 17, 2017, at 12:30 p.m. (CST) before District Court

Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen. A Pre-Trial Conference is set for December 14, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

(CST) before Magistrate Judge John E. Martin.

Attorneys Gal Pissetzky and John Maksimovich remain counsel of record for Defendant

Law, with Mr. Maksimovich’s oral motion to withdraw having been taken under advisement as the

4
Court waits to learn whether Mr. Pissetzky’s state court trial will be rescheduled, allowing Mr.

Pissetzky to take over the case.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2016.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

5