T h i s o p i n i o n w a s r e l e a s e d i n i t i a l l y i n ty p e s c r i p tf o r m. 
The Honor abl e Sa ndra D ay O’ Conno r, As s oc i at e J us t i c e of  the Uni t ed S t at es Su prem e Cour t( Ret
. ) , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on p u rs u a n t to 28 U .S.C . § 2 9 4 (a ).



## 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 o. 09

- 2516 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . S IDNEYO . S ELLERS, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 2:08- cr-00023- RL -A PR-1

—RudyL ozano, Judge
.
A RGUED M AY 18, 2010

— D ECIDED M AY 19, 2011 

B efore O’C ONN OR , A ss ociateJust ice, a nd K ANN E a nd  R OV NER, C ircu it Judges .2 N o. 09

- 2516 R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . A s p art o fa s tingo per at i o n, police o ffi cer s a nd Drug Enf or cem ent Ad m i ni str ati on offi cer s s tak ed out Si d n ey Sel l er s’ s ca r. W hen theypull ed th e c ar ov er for t ra ffic v iola tio n s, th ey fou n d a fu lly loade d han d gu n registered i n Il linois. Sell ers, h o w ever, was i n Indi an a. U p on ar r es t f o r po ss es si o n o fa ha ndg un w i thout the r equi si te l i cense, an inventor y s ear ch of Se l l er s’ s ca r re veal ed sev er albag s co ntai ni ng cr ack coca ine. Sell ers w as ch arged w ith an d conv icted by a j ury ofposs ess i on w i th i ntent to sel l cra ck coca i ne and posses

si on o fa fi re ar m used in drug tr affi cki ng, and sent enced to 180 m ont hs ’ inc arcerat ion. I n th is court, Sel lers ar gues that the dis tr ict cour t depri ved hi m o fhi s S i xth A m endm en t right to choi ce o fco unsel byf ai l i ng to g r an t a co nt i nua nc e, tha t th e co ur t er r ed i n de ny i ng hi s m oti on t o supp re ss evi dence ga th er ed pursuant to th e sea rch ofhi s v ehi cl e, and that the g ove rnm ent l acke d su ffi ci en t ev i den ce a t trial t o pr o ve hi m g ui l tyb ey o nd a r ea s o n a b l e d o u b to fth e d r u go ffe n s e . B e c a u s e we fi nd tha tS e l l e r s wa s i nd e e d d e ni ed hi s S i xth Am e nd

m en t r i g ht to co uns elo fhi s ch o o sing, the j udg m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s v acat ed and the case i s r em anded f or a new tr ial. W e need not add re ss Se l l er s’ s o theri ssues p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w.

I. O ur h olding obv iates t h e nee d to det ailthe facts surr o un di ngS e l l e r s ’ s c r i mi na l a cti v i t y a nd a r r e s t
. I ns t e a d, w e f ocus on the parti cul ar s surr ounding Se l l er s’s choi ce and ret enti on o fco unsel, and the dist ri ct court ’ s r esponse .N o. 09

- 2516 3

T he p artie s h a v e inform ed this cou rt tha t they are u na b le to 1 p ro v id e tran scrip ts of the p ro ceed ing s be fore M ag istra te (c on tin u ed

... ) Se l l er s ini ti al l y r eta i ne d a tto rneyDavi d W i enerto rep resen t him agains t th e d rug and gu n charge s . A p p are nt l y, s ho r tl y af t e r S e l l e r s e ng a g e d Wi e ne r, Wi e ne r a pp ro a c h ed at to rn ey M ich ae l O p p en h eim er an d as ke d h im to appear a s s eco nd ar y c ounsel

. R. 36 , Tr. 5/9/ 08 a t 10- 11. Op penheim er, byal l i nd i cati ons, was a str angerto S el l er s, ha vingne ve r b ee n hired byhi m . Nev er th el es s, Oppe nhei m erfi led a n appeara nce, W i enerdi d not. Thus at hi s p ro babl e ca use a nd detent i on hea ring o n Feb ruar y 2 2, 20 08 , S el l er s appear ed wi thOppe nhe i m era l o ne . Oppe nhei m erappeare d w i th S el l er s a gai n on M arc h 1 3, 20 08, athi s ar r ai g nm en t be f o r e M ag i st r at e Judg e Ro do vi ch

. At tha t he aring, the magi st r at e j udg e se t a dea dl i ne o fApri l 1 2, 2 00 8, f o r pr e- tr i almot i o ns , Apri l 2 5 f o r the pre- tr i alco nfe re nce, and M ay 12 f ortr i al

. The pre

- tr i al confer ence w as l ate r re - setto M ay 2, 20 08 du e t o Op penheim er ’ s a utom obi l e t ro ubl e o n A pri l 25
. A t the pre

- tr i alco nfe ren ce o n M ay 2, Opp enhei m er i ndi ca te d t ha t he woul d fi l e i m m i ne nt l y t wo mot i o ns

— a m otio n t o s uppr es s ev i den ce a nd a mot i o n t o c o nti nue. The m agi str ate j ud ge setdates r equi ring pre- tr i al m oti ons by M ay 6 a nd go ver nm ent r esponse s byM ay 20. Th e lat te r date fel l ei ght day s pastthe or i gi nal tr i al d ate, presu m ably ant ici p ating th at th e d istri ct cou rt w ou ld gra n t t h e c on tin u an c e. T h e m ag ist r a t e ju d ge ind ica te d, ne ve rthe l es s, tha t th es e dat es wer e co nt i ng en t up o n the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s g r a nto fa c o nt i nu a nc e . On 14 N o. 09

- 2516

(
. . . c o ntinu e d) J ud ge R od ovich on M ay 2, 2008, as the y w ere held in cham bers an d offthe re cor d

. R
. 3 6 . W e the refore ha v e on ly th e p arties’ repres entat ions ofw hat M agis tr ate J ud ge R od ovich s aid at tha t hea ri n g . A fter con ferring w ith th e m ag istrate jud g e, at a l a t e r h e a r i ng, the di s t r i c tc ou r tj udg e s t at e d o n the r e c or d, an d Se l l er s ’ s c ouns el c onfi rm ed, thatthe m agi s t ra t e j udge un equivocall y inf orm ed the defendan t that the dates he was s et t i ng w ere c ont i nge ntonthe di s t ri c tc our t ’ s gr antofa c ontin u a n ce . S eeR. 36, Tr. 5/ 9/ 08 at 5- 6, 26- 27. M ay5 , the di st r i ctc o ur t j ud ge is su ed ano r ders et ting a s ta tu s c on fer en c e fo r th e fo llow in g d ay . O p p en hei m erfi l ed hi s m oti on t o supp re ss evi dence on M ay 6. The go ver nm ent i m m edi ate l y obj ecte d that th e m o ti o n was l at e, ha vingno t be enfi l ed wi th i n the th i r t y d ay s fo llow in g t h e M ar c h 13 arr aig n m en t a s o rig inal l y o rder ed . T h e next day, S el l er s fi l ed hi s m oti on f or a co nti nuance, wh i ch as se rt ed fi rs t, thatco unsel had f i l e d th e mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s o n Ma y 6 i n r e l i a n c e o n t he m agi str ate j ud ge’ s bri efi ng schedule , and s eco nd , that Se l l er s r equi red a conti nuance to al l ow him to pro ceed w i th hi s co unsel o fchoi ce, Davi d W i ener . R. 26 at2. That sa m e day, M ay 7, the dist ri ct c ourtj ud ge denie d both the m oti on for a c onti nuance and the m oti on t o su ppr es s ev i den ce . I n di smi ss i ngthe mot i o n to c o nti nue, the cour t e xplai ned that the c ase had bee n set f ortr i alsin c e M ar ch 13, 20 08, and that Se l l er s had fi l ed the m oti on for the c onti nuance j ust three busi ness days b efo re th e s c h ed u led tria l d at e . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd id note thatthe m agi str ate j ud ge h ad exte nd ed the datesN o. 09

- 2516 5 f o r fi l i ng, b uts ta te d tha t “Mag i st r at e Ro d ovi chg av e th e dat es f o r the fi l i ngo fthe mot i o n t o s uppr es s an d the re sponse conting en t u pon thi s Courtgr anti ng a m oti on to continue. ” R. 30 at 2
. The di str i ct c ourtj ud ge al so cl ai m ed to be “b affled” bythe i nfo rm ati on that Davi d W ien er w as l ead co unsel and counselo fchoi ce f orS el l er s. W i ener, the cour t no ted, had ye t t o fi l e a n appearance in the case , and Op penheim er ’ s a sso ci ate had fa i l ed to m enti on a pro posed change i n counsel when appe ar i nga t th e st atus he ar i ng . “Addi ti o na l l y, ” th e d istri ct cou rt j ud ge w rote, “it i s typ icall y this C ou rt’s rul e that n ew c ou n sel tak e the cas e a s they fi nd i t. ” R. 30 at 2. F in a ll y, th e d istri ct cou rt noted that Sel lers’s att or ney ha d m i sse d seve ra l fi l i ng deadl i nes a nd f ai l ed to s ho w go o d c au se t o fi l e a l at e m o ti o n. I n s ho r t, the dist ri ct c ourt d en i ed the m oti on f ora continuance and confi rm ed the tr i aldate ofM ay 12, 20 08. Op penheim erappeare d again w i th S el l er s o n M ay 9 an d oral ly rene w ed his m otion for a con tinu an ce. W iener, O p p en he im er exp lai ne d , had b e e n retain ed by Sell ers to ac t as l ead co unsel i n the case and had i nfo rm ed Op penheim erthathe woul d fi l e hi s a pp ear ance s hor tl y. W i ener, however, was schedule d to begin a m urder tri al i n sta te cour t o n M ay 12, the date S el l er s’ s t ri alwas se t to st ar t, an d th en a se co nd m ur der tr i al o n M ay 19. Con

sequen tly, bec ause Op penheim erhad not i ntended to act as l e a d c o un s e l, a nd ha d no t pr e pa r e d a de qu a t e l y f or tr i al, a nd b ec au se W i en erwas no t av ai labl e, Oppe nhe im er renew ed h is m otion for a con tinu an ce. Th e cou rt aga i n denie d the m oti on but del aye d the t ri alo ne week6 N o. 09

- 2516

as a cou rt es y t o c o uns el, t o a l l o w the pa r ti es t o b r i efthe m oti on to supp re ss. The new tr i al date of M ay 19, 200 8, w as n o b et te r f o r W ien er , as h e w as sc h ed u led to be gin hi s s eco nd m urder tr i ali n sta te cour t that day. O n M ay 12 , at a p r e -tr ial h ea rin g, O p p en h eim er ag ain ap p ear ed f orS el l er s, but i nfo rm ed the cour t that W i ener w oul d enterhi s a pp ear ance that d ay a n d thatW i ener w as hopeful that he would be abl e t o ap p ear fortr i alo n M ay 19. Se llers ap p ea re d be for e t h e d ist ric t c ou rtju d g e a ga in o n F r i day, M ay 16, a fte r he i nf o r m ed th e co ur t th athe w ished to f ir e O p p en he im er. Sel lers add ressed the cou rt and announced fi rs t, that he had not chose n Op penheim er as hi s co uns el, s ec ond , tha t he ha d r et aine d W i en er, a nd thi rd, thatbec ause W ien erhad neverappeare d, he had been i n conta ct with two add i ti onalat torneys , o ne o f w hom he ho ped to hi re . The di str i ct c ourtinform ed Sell ers tha t althou gh he w as free to fire O p p en he im er, the c ourtwas unli kel y t o gr ant a co nti nuance to al l ow ne w cou ns el add iti ona l tim e t o p rep are for trial

. Sel lers re i ter ate d that he wished to fire Opp enhei m erbut re l uctantl y a gr eed to co nti nu e with hi m unti l he c oul d be as su re d th at h e h ad su b st itu te co u n se l for tr ial. On the sche du l ed date o ftr i al, M onday, M ay 19, 20 08, Se llers ap p ea re d w ith b ot h O p p en h eim er an d h i s n ew ly r et aine d a tt o r ne y, Sa nt o Vo l pe. Ea chc o uns ela nd the defen dan t address ed th e co ur t anno unc i nghi s si tu at i o n: Se l l e r s t o l d the c o ur t, “ Ido n’ twa ntMr
. Op pe nh e i mer to r epr es en t m e. W e ha ve t o o many di ffer en ce s o n the c as e. W e d on’ t s ee eye to ey e. W e don’ t g et al ong. ” R. 74 ,N o. 09

- 2516 7 Tr. 5/ 19/ 08 at 7. The new a ttorne y, Vol pe, r epor ted th at he w o u ld f il e an ap p earan ce on ly ifthe cou rt wo u l d c o n t i n u e th e c a s e t o a l l o w h i m a de qu a t e t i me to pr epa r e f o r t r i al

. F i na l l y, O p p en he i m eri nf o r m ed th e cour t that S el l er s h ad fi re d him o n Fr i day and hi re d Vo l pe i n h i s st ea d. The di st r i ctc o ur t j udg e den i ed th e i nfo rm alm oti on t o continue, expl ain ing that he had al r ea dy attem pte d t o a cc o m m o dat e co uns elb y he ar i ng anunt i m ely mot i o n t o s uppr es s, b y push ing ba ckthe tr i alda te from M ay 12 t o M ay1 9, a nd b y c an ce l l i ng hi s at te nda nc e ata S ev en thCi r cui t co nfer en ce . The cour t no ted furtherthatS el l er s’ s r ep ea te d prom i ses that W i enerwould fi l e a n ap peara nce nev ercam e t o f rui ti on. T he di str i ct c ourtthen i nstr ucted Se l l er s that he was fre e t o fi re Opp enhe im er( w ho, i t i s worth re

pea ting, S el l er s ha d ne ve r hi r ed i n the first pl ac e) , b ut that i fano therat torn ey did notente r hi s a pp ear ance that day, S el l er s would have to pro ceed t o tr ial p ro se . Se l l er s ul ti m ate l y a gr eed “u n d er pro tes t, ” a s he pu t i t, to con tinu e w ith O p p en he im er as h is cou ns el. R. 74, Tr. 5/19/08 at 8, 13. Foll ow ing a th ree-da y j ury tri a l, S ell ers w as convi cted o n al l co unts. H e wa s late r sente nced to a t er m o fi m pri son m en t of18 0 m onths. A fterunsucc es sfu l p os t-t ria l m ot ion s, Se llers filed th is a p p ea l. I n th is court, Sel lers argues th at th e d istrict cou rt’s re fu sa l t o g ra n t h im a c on tin u an c e d ep riv ed h im of h is Si xth A m endm ent ri ght to choi ce of counsel

. W e agr ee th at S el l er s was depr i ve d o f hi s S i xth Am en dm en t ri g ht an d th at h e t h er efo re is en tit led to a n ew tria l.8 N o. 09

- 2516 II. T h e Si xth A m endm ent g ra nts a defendant the ri ght t o ass i sta nce o fco unsel. U nited Sta tes v. G o nz a lez -Lo pez , 54 8 U. S
. 1 40 , 1 44 ( 20 06 )
. Thi s i nc l ude s th e r i g ht, whenthe de fe nd a nth a s the me a ns t o r e t a i n hi s o wn a t t o r ne y, to b e re p r e s e n t ed by co u n se l of ch oic e. Id. C on se q u en tly , a co ur t ca nno t arbi tr ar i l y o r unr ea so nabl y de nya de fen dan t th e rig h t t o re ta in ch os en co u n se l. C a rlso n v . Jess , 52 6 F. 3d 1018 , 10 24 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. T h e ri ght i s s epara te f r o m the g en er al i ze d due pr o ce ss r i g htt o a f ai r t r i al, a nd th us the de pr i va ti o n of th e r i g hti s co m pl et e when th e defen d ant i s e rr oneo usl y deni ed counselo fchoi ce. G o nz a lez -Lo pez , 54 8 U.S
. at14 8. S u c h a d eni alco nsti tutes stru ctu ral error and j us tifies reversal w ithou t inqu iry in to p rej u d ice
. Id. at15 0. The ri ght t o counseland the ri ght t o en gag e co unsel of one’s choos ing, how ever, are not absolut e. A cou rt re tai ns wide l ati tude to bal ance the r i ght t o choi ce o f co uns ela g ains t th e ne eds o ff ai r ne ss t o the l i ti gan ts an d ag ain stth e d em an d s o fi t s c ale n d ar . G o nz a lez -Lo pez , 54 8 U .S. at 1 52 ; U nite d State s v. Sm ith , 61 8 F
. 3d 6 57 , 6 66 ( 7th C ir. 20 10 ); U nited Sta tes v. C a rrera , 2 59 F. 3d 818, 82 4- 25 ( 7th Ci r. 2 001)
. Thi s m eans, o fco urse , thattr i alco urts ha ve broad discret ion to grant o r d e ny a requ est for a c on tin u an c e t o s u b st itu te n ew co u n se l. Carl s on , 52 6 F
. 3d at 1025
. “Onl y a n unreas oni ng and arbi tr ar y insi ste nce up on e xped i ti ousness i n the f ace ofa j u sti fi abl e r equest fo r d e l ay ” v iola te s t h e Six th A m en d m en t rig h t. C a rrera , 259 F. 3d at 82 5. I n deter m i ni ng wh etherthe deci si on w as arbi tr ar y, we consi der b oth the c i rcum sta nces ofN o. 09

- 2516 9

Int eres ti ngly, the court denied the m oti on f or a c onti nuan ce 2 t o s ubs t i t ut e ne w coun sel in par tbe c aus e ofthe f ai l i ngs ofcounsel

. Un der thi s reas onin g , a d efendan t who se l aw yer f ail s to c om ply w ith the court’ s d ea d li nes w il l be sadd le d w ith h is ineffectiv e cou nsel p recisely b eca u se th e l aw y er is in effe ct iv e. th e ru lin g a n d th e re as on s g ive n by th e jud ge . U nited St at e s v. San t os , 201 F.3d 953 , 958 (7th C ir. 2000). Inits M ay 7 o rd er , th e d ist ric t c ou rtoffe re d th re e p rim ar y e xplanat i ons f ori ts i ni tia l d eni alo fa continuance. Fir st , the m oti on was fi l ed past the deadl i ne f orpre tr i alm oti ons se t by the m agi str ate j ud ge and onl y days bef or e t ri al

. R. 30 at1- 2. S econ d , S el l er s’ s pre fer re d c ou n se l ha d n o t y e t file d an ap p ea ra n c e a n d ev en if h e h ad , th e c ou rtw ou ld follow its ow n r u l e t h at if a de fe nd a nt wi s he s t o hi r e a ne w l a wy e r, tha t “ new c o un sel take the c a s e a s the y fi nd i t
. ” R
. 3 0 a t2
. T hi r d, Op penheim er had r epeate dly m i sse d o ther deadl i nes in the m atter. Id. 2 A fterthe cour t i ssued the or der, Op penheim err enewed his m otion orall y b e fo re the cou rt du ring pre-trial he ari ngs. I n sti cki ng with hi s or i gi nal denia l, the di str i ct c ourt, f r o m th e b e n c h, o ffe r e d s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o ns f ordenyi ng the co nti nuance. These incl ud ed the f act th atthe c o urt h ad al r ea dy ac co m m o dat ed th e defen dan t by m oving the cas e ba ck one w eek, t he go ver nm ent had ti m ely tur ne d o ve r discover y, the c as e was no t co m pl ex , the j ud ge had cancel l ed hi s att en d ance a t the S eve nth C irc u it jud icia l co n fer e n c e , th e d ela y of t h e t ria l w ou ld af f e c t o the r c a s e s i n ne e d o f t r i a l da t e s , a nd tha the was10 N o. 09

- 2516

re sponding to the pr opensi ty ofo therI l l i n ois c ou nselto re quest l astm i nute co nti nuances. T o d e t e r mi n e wh e th e r th e d ec i si o n wa s a rb i t r a r y, we consi der the r eas ons f ordeni al ar ticul ate d by the di str i ct c ou rtj u d ge . Se eSa nt os , 20 1 F
. 3d at9 58
. W e be g i n wi ththe co ur t’ s r epe at ed st at ement

— re i ter ate d fo ur t i m es

— that th e c on tin u an c e w ou ld be d en ied , in p ar t, be c au se “itis typi cal l y thi s Court ’ s ru le that new co unsel ta ke the c ase as th ey find it.” R . 3 0 a t 2
. See a lso R. 74 , Tr. 5/ 19/ 08 at 5; R . 36, T r. 5/1 6/ 08 at4, 26 . Th is is n ot, h o w e v e r , th e ru le i n thi s Ci r c ui t
. Qu i t e the o pp o s i t e . T he S i xth Am e nd

m en t d em an d s t h at a d ist ric t c ou rtm ay n o t arb itr ar ily and unreaso nabl y deny a co nti nuance to pro vi de f or c h oic e ofc o u n se l. Carl s on , 52 6 F
. 3d at 1024
. A dh er i ng to a ri gi d r ul e tha t“ a l a wy e r mus tt a k e the c a s e a s h e fi nd s i t” i s e xa c tl y the ty pe ofarbi tr ar y r ule thatthe Si xth A m en d m en t p ro h ibit s. See i d. at10 26 . Th u s a m yo p ic in sis te n c e o n p ro c ee d in g w ith a sc h ed u led tria l d at e in th e fac e o fa v al i d r eque stf o r a c o nt i nua nc e i s arbi tr ary an d u n re as on ab le. U nited S t a tes v. M iller, 32 7 F
. 3d 598, 601 (7th Cir. 2003). Bu t what ofthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o therexplan at i ons f or th e den i al ? The di st r i ctc o ur t se emed pa r ti cul ar l y c o ncer ned about the “el eve nth-ho ur” fi l i ng f ora continuance and the re l ate d f act that Se l l er s’ s att or ney ha d m isse d th e d ea d lin es for ot h er p re -tr ial filin gs . See R. 30 at1 ( cri ti ci zi ng the 11 th hour m oti on) ; R. 36 , Tr. 5/9/ 08 at 15- 16, 20 ( sam e) ; R
. 36, T r. 5/16 /0 8 at 18 (sa m e) ; R
. 74 , Tr. 5/ 19/ 08 at1 2 ( sa m e) ; R. 3 0 at2 -3 ( cr i ti ci zingc o uns elf o r i gno r i ng othe r pretr i alfi l i ng deadl i nes) ; R. 36 , Tr. 5 /9/0 8 a t 3 1, 34N o. 09

- 2516 11 ( sam e) ; R. 74 , Tr. 5/ 19/ 08 at 10 ( sam e)
. A di str i ct cou rt, afteral l, has a l egi ti m ate i nter esti n en suri ng tha t par ti es ab i de bysch edu l i ngor der s t o e ns ur e pr o m pt, o r der l y, a nd fair litiga tio n . C a m pa nia Mgm t. Co ., Inc . v . Ro o ks, P itts & P o ust, 290 F.3d 843 , 85 1 ( 7 t h C ir. 2002). E ven w he re Sixth A m en d m en t ri gh ts are at stake , a district cou rt l egi ti m ate l y c an bal ance the r i ght t o c ou nselo fchoi ce aga i ns t th e demands o fi ts c al en dara nd mak e sc he dul i ng and otherdeci si ons that effecti vel y e xcl ud e cho sen c ou n se l. G o nz a lez -Lo pez , 5 4 8 U. S
. a t1 5 2
. The k e y, h o weve r, i s whether th e co urt has ind eed bal anced thos e i nter est s, o r i nstea d has ac ted arbi tr ar i l y. I t is th roug h th is l en s tha t w e view the d istri ct c ou rt’s ex pl an at i o n tha t th e defen dan t’s mot i o n f o r a c o nt i nuance c a me t o o l a t e . Op pe nh e i merfi l e d the fi r s tmo ti on f ora continuance on M ay 7, 20 08, fi ve days ( thre e busi ness days) befor e the o ri gi nal l y s cheduled M ay 12 tr i aldate. T hi s f act, the go ver nm ent s ays , di sti ngui shes Se llers ’s ca se fro m on e up on w h ich th e d efe n d an t h ea vily re l i es

— Ca r l s on , 52 6 F
. 3d at1 01 8. I n Carl s on , th is C irc u it f ound that t h e co urt had denied a defe nd ant hi s S i xth Am en dm en t r i g htt o c o uns elo fc ho i ce whenhe re quested new counself our days pr i orto tr i al

. “M ost no tabl y, i n Carl s on , ” th e g o ve r nm en t sa y s, “ th e defen dan t fi l ed hi s m oti on o ne week be f or e t ri al

. . . . I n contr ast, S el l er s f ai l ed to fi l e hi s fi r stwri tt enmot i o n f o r [ a] c o nt i nu a nc e u nt i l thr e e b us i ne s s da y s b e f o r e t r i al w as s c he dule d to begin. ” ( Gover nm ent b ri efat22

- 23)
. Thi s j uxtap ositi on is c o n fo u nd ing. I n fact, both C arlson an d Sel lers filed th eir m ot ion s at ap p ro x im at ely th e sam e p o i n t in l i ti gat i on

— i n Ca r l so n’ s ca se , o n Aug us t 23 , j us t f o ur12 N o. 09

- 2516 days ( and tw o busi ness days) befor e th e scheduled A u gu st 27tria l. Ca r l s on , 5 26 F
. 3d at1 02 0. S el l er s, o n the othe r hand , fi led hi s m oti on fi ve days ( thre e business days) pri orto tr i al

. I n re vi ew i ng the Carl s on ca se , th is cour t found that the ti m i ng o fCarl son’ s m oti on was und er sta nd abl e a s h e had fi l ed hi s m oti on t o substi tute i m m edi ate l y a fterhe r eta i ned new counsel, he ha d neverr equeste d substi tute cou n se l pre vi ousl y, he ha d no hi sto ryo fga m i ng the sy ste m , and the tim e s i nce ar ra i gnm ent was “r el ati ve l y s hor t. ” Carl s on , 52 6 F
. 3d at 10 26 . Th e c o u r t als o n ot ed th at th e c as e w as rela tiv ely si m pl e an d woul d n o t r equi r e a l en g th y t r i alno r many w itn es se s. The sa m e ca n be sai d fo r Se l l er s o n al l co unts ( i n f a c t, the t i me f r o m S e l l e r s ’ s a r ra i gnm entt o the s c he du led t ri aldate w as onl y s i xty days

— sh orter by m ore th an a th ird th an C ar lso n ’s n in et y-n in e d ay s). S e e a lso San t os , 20 1 F
. 3d at 958- 59 ( tw o- and-a- hal fm onths f ro m in d ict m en t t o t ria l w as n ot, am on g o t h e r re as on s, a re aso n to deny a c ontinuance)
. Li ke Se l l er s, Carl son inf or m ed the cour t that com m unica ti on between h is l awy era nd hi m se l fha d c o m pletel y b r o k endo wn an d that they co uld notag re e o n an appro ach to the defe nse. Carl s on , 526 F.3d at10 27 . I f th er e is an y d iffer en c e a t a ll, i t i s that Car l son re m ai ned i n cust od y w hi l e hi s ca se wa s p e nd i ng wh e r e a s S e l l e r s wa s r e l e a s e d o n b o nd

. A l though thi s m ay have g ive n Se l l er s incenti ve to del ay h is tria l, th er e is n o ev id en c e in th e rec o r d th a t h is r eque stt o d el aythe t r i ali n o r dert o a cc o m m o dat e th e appearance o fhi s co unsel o f c h oic e w as fi l ed i n an at te m p t t o p os tp on e in c ar c er at ion . T o t h e c on tr ar y, th is w as th e first a nd o nl y m oti on f ora continuance thatN o. 09

- 2516 13 Se l l er s fi l ed pri orto tr i al, and th er e was an abund ance ofev i dence that, fro m day o ne, S el l er s had be en r epresente d by a l aw yerhe ne verchos e. W e l o o k, ho wev er, no t j us t atho w cl o se t o t r i althe r eque stc ame, o r ho w l o ngi t ha s be ens i nc e t he a r r ai g nm en t, b utr athe r, a s th e co ur t di d i n Carl s on , we l o o kat the whol e o fthe ci rcum sta nces surrou nd i ng the l ast m i nut e fi l i ng . See also Sm ith , 61 8 F
. 3d at 666 ( l oo ki ng at th e c ou rt ’s c om m en ts , tak en as a w h ole ); San t os , 2 01 F. 3d at 958 (“th e ap p ell a t e c o u rt m us t con side r both the circumst an ce s o fthe r ul i nga nd the r ea so ns g i ven b y the j ud ge for it”). A t arraignm en t, th e m agistrate j ud ge ordered al l pretr i al m oti ons to be fi l ed w i thi n thi rty d ays of th e M arch 13, 2008 arraignm en t (i
. e., on A p ril12, 2008 ), an d s et a tr i aldate f orM ay 12, 20 08. A s o fthe pre- tr i al confer ence on M ay 2, 20 08, Opp enhei m er h ad n ot fi l ed any pr e- tr i alm oti ons on S elle rs’ s be hal f

. On that date, Oppenhe i m eri nf o r m ed th e m ag i st r at e j udg e th athe w as not c ou n se l o fchoi ce a nd thathe woul d fi l e a m oti on f ora continuance to gi ve Se l l er s’ s chose n counsel the o pp ortu n i ty to fi l e a n appearance and prepar e for tr i al

. I n l i ght of th at i nfo rm ati on, the m agi str ate j ud ge extended the dead lin es f orfi l i ng m oti ons, co nti ngent on th e d istri ct cou rt’s gran t o f th e con tinu an ce. Op p en he im er, apparentl y e xpecti ng W i enerto r epl ace hi m atany m om ent, f ai l ed to fi l e the pre

- tr i alm oti on t o supp re ss by th e o r i g i na l Apr i l 1 2 da t e . He a l s o f a i l e d t o fi l e hi s pro p osed j ur y i ns tr uct i o ns , pr o po se d v o i r di r e, a nd j o i nt st at em en t o f th e c as e a s o rig in ally req u ire d , erra n tly r ely i ngo n the magi st r at e’ s j udg e’ s co nt i ng en t ex te ns i o n.14 N o. 09

- 2516 There i s no doubt that Op p en h ei m erwas at f aul t for m issi ng de ad li ne s w hile w aiting forW iener to ap p ear, an d f or i nc orrec tly r elyi ng on th e m agistrate j ud ge’s contingent extensi on. But a c ou rt thatsa cri fi ces a S i xth A m endm ent r i ght with out vi ew i ng the ci rcum sta nces of the case as a w hol e acts arbi tr ar i l y. W hen vie w ed thro ugh the l ens of th e c ase as a w hol e, we see that Op penheim eras su m ed fro m the get
- go that W i ener w oul d be t ak in g the hel m . W i eneras ked Opp enhei m er onl y forh i s assi sta nce a s s eco nd chai r. R. 36 , Tr. 5/9/ 08 at 9- 12. A lthou gh this d oes not j us tify Op p en he im er’s f ail ure to m eetthe cour t’ s deadl i nes, i t doe s pro vi de so m e e vidence thatOpp enhei m erdi d not f ai l to pre pare the c ase f ortr i aland se ek a co nti nuance as a del ay tact i c o r f or othe r i l l egi ti m ate r eas ons, but ra therhe del aye d prepara

ti on i n tr ue antic ip atio n that W i enerwould st ep i n as he a pp a r e nt l y ha d pr o mi s e d. Op pe nh e i mer a pp e a r e d t o b e c o un t i ngo n W i e ne r ’ s a pp e a r a nc e u nt i l the bit te r e nd

. See R . 3 6, Tr. 5/9/ 08 at 11 ( “I t i s m y unders tandi ng, J ud ge, tha tMr
. Wi e ne r ’ s a pp e a r a nc e h a s not y e tb e e n fi l e d, althou gh he p lans on fil ing his ap p earan c e ”); R. 36, Tr. 5/ 12/ 08 at 3 ( “The Court: yo u w er e ad vi sed thathe was goin g t o ente r an ap p earan ce tod ay? M r. Op p en he im er: That’ s co rr ect, yo ur Honor. ”) ; Id. at8 ( “The Court: M r. W iener i s s ti l l go i ng to ente r an appeara nce y ou thought to day som e ti m e? M r. O pp enhei m er : Y es. ”) ; R
. 36 , T r. 5/1 6/ 08 at22 (“T h e C ou rt : A s lat e a s t h is w ee k d id M r. W iener tellyou h e w as going to ap p ear. Sell ers: Y es.”). M oreover, al th ou gh i t is tru e th a t t h e d istri ct cou rt adm oni shed Op penheim erto pre pare f ortrial, iti ssued th at w ar n in g on th e F r i d a y p r ior t o a M on d ay tria l.N o. 09

- 2516 15 R. 3 6 , T r . 5 / 1 6 / 0 8 a t27
. T he di s t r i c tc o ur ta dv i s e d, “M r. Opp enhei m er, Isugg estthat you get rea dy f ortr i alo n M onday un til such tim e as yo u a re term ina ted, i f you are ter m i nated. ” Id. ( em p ha sis sup p li ed ). In fact, Sel lers c o n t a c t e d O p p e n h e i me r l a t e r th a tv e r y d a y t o fi r e h i m. R. 74 , Tr. 5/ 19/ 08 at 8- 9. I n shor t, i t doe s no t a pp ear th a t S e l l e r s wa s a t t e mp t i n g t o d e l a y h i s t r i a l o r g a me th e s ys te m . Se eCar l s on, 526 F.3 d at 1026; Sa nt os , 20 1 F
. 3d at 959. The di st r i ct cour t spo k e g en er i ca l l y o fho w co ntinu an c e s b urd en other li tigant s and the cou rt’s calend ar. R. 3 6, Tr
. 5 / 12 / 08 at 4 ; R
. 74, Tr
. 5 / 19 / 08 a t 11
. Butthe f act that the dist ri ct c ourtf ai l ed to i nquir e o fei ther Op penheim er, o r l ate r Vol pe, how l ong substi tute c ou n se l w ou ld n ee d to p re p ar e a d eq u at ely for t ria l ev idences a failu re to ac tual l y b al ance the r i ght t o choi ce ofco unsel ag ai nst the nee ds off ai rness, and sugges ts that the di str i ct c ourtunrea sonab l y v i ew ed any del ay as u n ac c e p t ab le. S e eUn i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 57 6 F
. 3d 385, 39 0 ( 7th C ir. 2 009) ( “The f ai l ure to 

### inquireho w l o ng the defense needs to pre pare sugg es ts that the di str i ct cour t unre aso nabl y c onsi dered anydel ay unacceptabl e: T h at so rtof rigid ity ca n o n ly b e c h ar ac te riz ed as arb itr ar y.” ); see also Carl s on , 526 F. 3d at 1026. A district cou rt’s schedule , al though a si gni fi cant c onsi derat i on, does not au to m at ica lly tr u m p all ot h er int er es ts
. Sm ith , 61 8 F
. 3d at 66 6. A s th is cou rt h as n ot ed , tr ial d a t e s fr eq u en tly op en w h en ca se s s et tle a n d d efe n d an ts p lea d

. Carl s on , 526 F. 3d at 1026
. A l though the di str i ct c ourth ad a t w o- tothre e week pol i ti calco rr uptio n trial se t t o begin M ay 26 ( i
. e. , a we e k a ft e r S e l l e r s ’ s t r i a l b e g a n) ( R. 3 6 , Tr
. 5 / 9 / 0 8 at 22- 23) , ev en the in c onvenie nce o fpushinga tr i albac k a16 N o. 09

- 2516

m ont h or so can easil y b e o u t w eighed by a de fend an t’s in te re st in h av in g c o u n se l of ch oic e. See C a rlson , 526 F. 3d at 1026
. The re cor d provi des no evi dence thatthe cour t ba l anced any o fthes e ci rcum sta nces aga i nst the nee d s off ai rnes s an d th e d em an d s o f its ca len d ar . See G o nz a lez -Lo pez , 54 8 U. S
. a t 15 2. I t seem s in st ea d tha t th e co ur t st o o d o n un yie ld in g p rin c ip le

— the pr i nci ple thatnew counselm ust “t ak e th e ca se a s he fi nds i t”; th e pri nc i pl e th atc o nt i nuances w i l l notbe gr anted f ortho se w ho r equest them at th e el ev en th

- ho ura nd mi ss o th erde adl i ne s; a nd the pri nci ple thatdel ay ofo ne cas e wil l un fair ly back l og ot h er ca se s. I n a ddi ti o n t o the mor e co m pel l i ng“ el ev en th

- ho ur ” an d cour t s cheduling ra ti onal es ar ti cul ate d by the di str i ct cour t, i ts o pi ni o n a nd o r alr ul i ng s ar e r i ddl ed wi thi nd ications of generalized ann oyan ce w ith d efend an t’s c ou n se l th at sm ac k of a n arb it r ar y a p p lica tio n of th e ru le as r et r ibut i o n f o r b o thc o uns el ’ s o wn er r o r s, a nd the er r o r s o fo th er s. M o sts tr i k i ng l y, the di st r i ctc o ur t con fe s s e d: I al so ra n i nto the probl em w here ther e w er e other c a s e s w i th I l l i n o i s c o un s e l , w h o j u s th a p p e n e d s o me w er e I l l i noi s counsel, and they w er e coun se l tha t wer e appe ar i nga t th e 11 th h ou r a nd a sk i ngf o r c o nti nuances be cause of n ew co unsel

. S o i fIgo t e xci ted wi thy o u, tha t was o ne of t he re as o ns y o u c au g ht m y wrath b ec au se o fthe di l emm a th atwas b eing caused bythat

.N o. 09

- 2516 17

The dist ri ctcou rtjud ge lat er conceded that O pp enheim er had 3 a “w el l f ound ed” excus e f or m is si ng the s tatus c onfe rence t o a t t en d a pr evi ously s c he dul ed h ea ri ng i n New M ex i c o. R
. 36, Tr. 5/ 9/ 08 at 13. R
. 36, T r. 5/12/08 at 5. T he re can be no m ore arbitrary an d unr ea so nabl e appl i ca ti o n o f a r ul e th an as p un is hm ent forthe m i sst eps o fano therl aw yeri n an unre l ate d ca se . The r e wer e pl en tyo fo th eri ndi ca ti o ns tha t th e cou rt w as sim p ly an n o y ed w ith O p p en he im er. Th e cou rt ap p eared to disbelieve everyth ing from Op p en he im er’s cl ai m o fcar tr oubl e a t o ne st atus hear i ng to hi s s cheduled ap p ea ra n c e o n an ot h er ou t- o f-st at e m at te r. See, e . g. , R. 30 at 2 ( “Op penheim erf ai l ed to appear at the fi rs t pre tr i al confer ence i n fro nt o fM agi str ate Rodovi ch, cl ai m i ng ca r tr oubl e”) ; R. 30 at3, ( “Op penheim ernow claim s t o be i n New M ex i co o n a matt er, b utdo es no t ex pl ain why thi s t ake s pre ced en ce t o a t ri al, o r w hy he w as not prepared. ”) The di str i ct c ourtj ud ge e ven co m pla i ned that

3 he “ ca nc el ed i n pa r t for th is c as e m y a tt en dan ce a t th e Se ve n th C irc u it Ju d icia l C on fer en c e, w h ich is be in g h eld i n Chicag o today, ” R. 74 , Tr. 5 /1 9/ 08 at7, and fi nal l y, th a th e h a d a l r e a d y “ s p e n ta s u b s t a n t i a l a mo u n to ft i me g et tingr ea dy f o r thi s ca se o ve r the wee k end a nd in the l astfew weeks. ” Id. at12 ; R. 36 , Tr. 5/9/ 08 at 20. W e r eit erate thata cour t ce rt ai nl y m ay consi der ho w l astm i nute co nti nuances and m i ssed d ead l i nes t re ad up on t h e r igh ts of parties an d the d em an d s of a cou rt’s ca l en dar

. The k ey, ho wev er, i s th atthe se l eg i ti m at e co nsid er at ion s m u st be ba lan c ed ag ain st th e re as on s in supp or t o f the m oti on f ora continuance to acc om m odate18 N o. 09

- 2516

I twas c lear thathe was no tpr epa re d t o gi ve an ope ni ng 4 s t a t e m e nt tha t da y, a s i t was l e s s tha n on e pa ge oftr ansc r i pt ( 25 0 wor ds ) an d f ailed to p re s en tan y c ohe re ntthe or y ofthe cas e. R. 74, Tr. 5/ 19/ 08 at 177- 78. n ew co u n se l. Carl s on , 5 26 F
. 3d at1 02 6- 27
. Her e, the c ou rt f ai l e d i n i t s d u t y t o l o o ka l s o a tth e o th e r s i d e o ft he sc al e an d t o weigh S el l er s’ s r at i o na l e f o r t er m i na ting Oppenhe imer
. The c o ur t o ug htt o ha ve c o ns i der ed th e f act thatOpp enhei m erhad neverbee n Se l l er s’ s co unsel ofchoic e ( R. 36 , Tr. 5/ 16/ 09 at 23)
. Thi s was nota case w here a defe nd ant hi re d one co unsel and then l ate r changed h is m i nd

. M or e i m port antl y, co m m unica ti on between S el l er s a nd Opp enhei m erhad com ple tel y dete r i o r at ed. R. 74, Tr
. 5/ 19 / 08 at 7 ( “I don ’t w an t M r . O ppenhe i m ert o r epr es en t m e. W e ha ve t o o many d ifferenc es on th e case. W e d on’t see eye to eye. W e d on’t g e ta l o n g . ” )
. F u r th e r mo r e , th e c o u r tmu s th a v e kn o wn th at O p p en he im er w as u np rep ared f or tri a l. T he cou rt ha d i nfo r med Op pe nh e i mer tha t he s ho ul d pr e pa r e f or tr i alunti l such t i m e a s he w as ter m i nated. R. 36, Tr. 5/ 16/ 08 at2 7. ButOppe nhe i m ermade cl ea r t o the c ou rt tha t he w as i nfo rm ed on the Fr i d ay bef or e the M onday t ri althat he had bee n fi re d . R
. 74 , Tr. 5/ 19/ 08 at 8- 9. I n f act Op penheim erwas apparentl y s o cer tain th at h e was te rm in at e d th at h e h ad m ad e a rra n ge m en ts to ap p ea r in an ot h er co urtho use in another m att ero n the date s et f or Se llers ’s tri al, and had to cal l hi s o ffi ce fro m J ud ge Lozano’ s co urtr oo m to ar ra nge forano th erl aw yerto appear. R. 74 , Tr. 5/ 19/ 08 at 17. 4 The dis tr i ct cou rt al so had the duty t o consi der that S el l er s’ s ne w co uns ela nd c ou nse l o fc ho i ce , Vo l pe, i n-N o. 09

- 2516 19 f or m ed the cour t that “ Iw ou ld be doi ng a gr eat, gr eat d iss er vic e t o M r. S el l er s i fIat tem pted to tr y thi s ca se th is w eek.” R. 74, Tr . 5 /19/08 at 12. Furth erm ore, Sell ers m ade i t cl earthathe was notp re p ar ed to pro ceed pro se . “W el l, Your H onor, Ican’ t r epres ent m yse l f

. ” Id. at7. Thu s the co urt knew that S el l er s was l eft with th re e c h oic es : F i r s t, h e c ou ld op t fo r a la w ye r, n otof h is ch o o sing, who , a l th o ug h s o m ewha t fam il i arwi ththe ca se , was unpr epa r ed for tr i al, a nd wi thwho m he coul d not g et al ong or a gr ee. S eco nd , he c oul d picka l aw yero fhi s cho i ce who w as com ple tel y unf am i l i ar w i th h i s c a s e a nd wh o l l y u np r e pa r e d fo r t r i a l ; o r thi r d, he co uld r epres ent hi m sel f, ag ai n w ith ou t a ny ti m e t o prepar e fort ria l o r study the l aw . S el l er s’ s r eas ons f or ne edinga c o nt i nua nc e wer e f ac i al l y val i d, y etthe di s t r i c tc o ur tf a i l e d t o e xp l o r e the m o r b a l a nc e the m aga i nst the l egi ti m ate r eas ons f ordenyi ng the m oti on for a c on tin u an c e. Se eCar l s on , 52 6 F
. 3d at 1026

- 27. The go ver nm ent a rgues that S el l er s’ s ca se is sim i l arto U nited Sta tes v. C a rrera , wher e th i s cour t uphe l d the tr ial court ’ s deni alo fa continuance f orsubst i tuti on o f c ou n se l m ad e in th e d ay s jus t p rior t o t ria l. Id. 259 F. 3d 818 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. The go ver nm ent i gnor es the fac t that, b ec au se C ar re ra ’s p ro p os ed n ew at to rn ey n ev er ac tu ally ap p eared to m ove for a con tinu an ce, th e d istri c t c o u rt c ou ld n oten g a g e i n t h e e x ac t t yp e o f ba lan c in g t h atis essen tial before d ecid ing w he th e r a cont inu an ce is w arra nt ed

. Id. at 825 For this reason, Ca rrera’s l aw yer’s20 N o. 09

- 2516

Carrera’ s att orneys fil ed an em ergency m oti on to w ithd raw 5 not i ng thatCar re ra ha d t er m i nat ed the i r re pre s en tation. C a rr era’ s new counsel, how ever, did not app ear and never fil e d a m otio n to con tinu e or f or sub stitutio n o f cou nsel. C arrera , 259 F. 3d at 822- 23. mot i o n t o wi thd r a w a s c o un s e l w as de ni e d. C a rrera , 25 9 5 F.3d at 825 ( “[B ]ecau se his attorn ey ne ver m oved f or a c on tin u an c e, w e d o n otkn ow if th e g ov er n m en t w ou ld ha ve o ppo se d the mot i o n, i fthe j udge ha d a s ch edu l i ng c on flict, or if a co n tin u an c e w ou ld h av e c au se d h a rd sh ip to any of th e pa rties. ”). U nd er G o nz a lez -Lo pez , thi s co nsti tuti onalvi ol ati on const i tutes a str ucturaler ro r not subj ec t t o re vi ew f or h ar m les sn es s. Id. , 548 U .S. at 14 8-4 9, 15 2. It is im p os sib le t o kno w wha tdi ffe r e ntc ho i c e s , i fany, W i e ne r o r V o l pe w oul d have m ade in h ow theyapproa ched the pr e- tr i al m oti ons, how t hey defended Sel l er s a t t ri al, and w hat i mp a c ttho s e di ffe r e n c e s mi gh th a v e h a d o n th e o u t c o me of t h e p ro c ee d in gs . Id. a t 15 0. T he err o r a ffec te d the f r amewor ko fthe t r i ala nd pr e- tr i alpr o ce eding s an d denie d Sel l er s hi s S i x th A m endm ent r i ght t o choi ce of c ou n se l. A s a fina l m at te r, on M ay 9, 20 11 , Seller s m ov ed th is c ou rtfor a te m p or ar y re lea se on bo n d p en d in g a p p ea l. Tha t m oti o n t o thi s co ur t i s no w m o o t, b uti n l i g hto fthe exi gent situati on r ega rdi ng S el l er s’ s m othe r and her decl i ni ng heal th, the dist ri ct cour t shal l const rue th at m oti on a s o ne m ade to i t a nd shal l deci de the m oti on w i th al l due haste

.N o. 09

- 2516 21 The j ud gm ent a nd se ntence bel ow are V ACATED , a nd th is c ase i s R EMAND ED f ora new tr i al, i ncl ud i ng al l pre tr i alpro ceedi ngs. The m andate s hal l i ssue i m m edi ate l y.

6- 2- 11