Opinion ID: 1139555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the right of an accused to out of state counsel of his own choice.

Text: Petitioner Schumacher contends his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Federal Constitution are being violated by Respondent Judge in that to deny the application of Smith to appear pro hac vice effectively denied Schumacher's right to counsel of his own choosing. Petitioner relies principally upon United States v. Bergamo et al. (3rd Cir.1946) 154 F.2d 31, wherein it was held: The Sixth Amendment provides inter alia that `In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right    to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.' The Supreme Court has held that the right to the assistance of counsel includes the right to counsel of the defendant's choosing. In Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 70, 62 S.Ct. 457, 464, 86 L.Ed. 680, Mr. Justice Murphy citing Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527, stated that `   the right to the assistance of counsel is so fundamental that the denial by a state court of a reasonable time to allow the selection of counsel of one's own choosing, and the failure of that court to make an effective appointment of counsel, may so offend our concept of the basic requirements of a fair hearing as to amount to a denial of due process of law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment   .' [cases cited] `Under both our Federal and State Constitutions, a defendant has the right to defend in person or by counsel of his own choosing,' citing inter alia the Sixth Amendment. Petitioners also rely upon Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 316 P.2d 213 (1957), syllabus by the Court: 4. If defendant is able to employ counsel, the choice is a personal right of which he cannot be deprived by arbitrary action which is secured to him by express constitutional and statutory provisions, the denial of which is fundamental error. While both Bergamo, supra, and Jackson, supra, are accepted as proper, correct statements of fundamental constitutional law, neither case deals with the denial of admission of an out of state lawyer to appear pro hac vice, upon a showing of legal cause, where local counsel has been retained in the case. In holding that an accused person could not claim representation by out of state lawyers as a constitutional right, but once admission pro hac vice was granted, the same could not, without cause, be taken away. The United States Court of Appeals in Cooper et al. v. Hutchinson (3rd Cir.1950) 184 F.2d 119, made the following pertinent observation: The narrower question here is the extent to which an accused persons choice of counsel is a constitutional right. The argument insists that there is a constitutional right, at least in a capital case, to whatever counsel an accused person pleases to have. If that counsel is not a member of the bar of the state where the prosecution is being conducted, still, the argument runs, the accused may effectively choose him just as freely as he could choose a lawyer admitted to practice locally. The person chosen by the accused may then insist upon conducting the defense in the local courts. Control by the states over the persons who may be licensed to practice law in their courts would thus be greatly diminished in every capital criminal prosecution where the accused desires counsel from somewhere else.  The length to which this argument takes one is startling. It has always been thought that the license to practice law is limited, except as a matter of grace, to persons who had fulfilled the local requirements for practice.    [E.A.] The case at bar indicates no discharge of counsel pro hac vice following the commencement of the proceedings, as was the case in Cooper, supra . Again, citing the Ohio case of State v. Ross, supra : There is nothing provincial about the requirement for admission to practice in the courts of a State. The courts of every jurisdiction must have control of practice before them as an `incident to the broader responsibility for keeping the administration of justice and the standards of professional conduct unsullied.' Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117, 123-124, 81 S.Ct. 954, 958, 6 L.Ed.2d 156, 162 (1961). In State v. Ross, supra , the refusal by a trial judge to permit an out of state attorney to appear pro hac vice because that attorney had, prior to the order of refusal, violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, was sustained by the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. We therefore conclude that Petitioner Schumachers' Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing does not extend to an out of state attorney who has either failed to comply with the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association; or, whose previous conduct is in contravention of those Rules. Concluding, further, that Respondent Judge did not abuse sound judicial discretion denying Petitioner Smiths' Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice, and that there is no infringement upon Petitioner Schumachers' Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to Counsel, we deny the Application for Writ of Mandamus. Original jurisdiction assumed. Petition for writ of mandamus denied.