Opinion ID: 200697
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attorney Fernandez's Appearance

Text: 7 On August 5, 1996, Christine Fernandez, an attorney with the New York law firm of Aranda & Guttlein, filed a motion to appear pro hac vice in this matter. On the same day, attorney Andres M. Aranda, a partner of the Aranda & Guttlein law firm, also moved to appear pro hac vice but his motion was not docketed or acted upon by the court. In an affidavit filed in support of her motion, Fernandez stated that she had been a member in good standing of the New York bar since 1996 and that she specialize[d] in criminal and federal law. On September 9, Fernandez appeared in person before a Superior Court judge, who allowed the motion to appear pro hac vice on the express condition that the trial date of September 23, 1996 remain the scheduled trial date and that the allowance of this motion not delay the trial. On that same day, Fernandez filed a notice of appearance, and attorney Bransfield, the court-appointed counsel, withdrew. 8 On September 12, 1996, attorney Jorge Guttlein (Guttlein), another partner of the Aranda & Guttlein law firm, sent a letter to the court together with an undated motion to appear pro hac vice. In the letter, Guttlein acknowledged that Castillo's trial was scheduled for September 23, 1996, but requested that trial be continued until October 17 because he had a scheduling conflict. The trial court treated this letter as a motion for a continuance, which it denied. Castillo's case was subsequently transferred from Essex Superior Court to Lawrence Superior Court for trial on September 24, 1996. Guttlein appeared before the Lawrence Superior Court on September 24, 1996, and his motion to appear pro hac vice was allowed that day. Castillo's case was not called for trial that day but was continued to the next morning. 9 Fernandez appeared in court the next morning and informed the judge that Guttlein had been called back to New York late yesterday afternoon because his wife was ill. Fernandez stated that she was appearing on Castillo's behalf and that she had reviewed all the pretrial motions and was prepared to argue them, but that she had a series of requests regarding her late entry into the case this morning. She sought a further delay in the trial: 10 I arrived in Massachusetts last night at about four a.m. because the roads were awful with the rain and everything else. I have had very little opportunity to review this file. I understand that we're scheduled to go forward, and I'm prepared to at least go forward with jury selection. However, I would ask your Honor please not to go forward with any testimony until I've had an opportunity to further review this file. 11 The trial judge responded that Fernandez's motion to appear was allowed several weeks ago with the specific condition that it not delay the trial. Fernandez argued that at the time she was admitted to appear pro hac vice, she was not under the impression that [she] would be trying this case since Guttlein has been slotted to try this case. The judge replied: 12 [Y]our firm was on notice that whoever was going to try this case was going to be prepared for it. And the Court doesn't look behind appearances when you have two or three people, all of whom are on there. Everyone is presumed to be ready, willing and able to try the case. 13 However, the judge stated that he did not know how far they would get that day, although it seemed likely they would get through impanelment and opening statements. He deferred ruling on the request to delay any testimony until later in the day. After impanelment and opening statements, the judge recessed the proceedings for an hour and a half, stating that the Commonwealth would call its first witness following the recess and Fernandez would be called on to cross-examine the witness. Although this statement implicitly denied the request for a one-day delay of testimony, Fernandez did not voice any further objections to the schedule.