Opinion ID: 1506841
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gregg Moran's Appeal

Text: Gregg Moran's appeal focuses principally on the trial justice's decision to deny his motion for a continuance to permit his counsel of choice to defend him at trial. Having evaluated the facts and circumstances of this case, we believe the denial of Gregg's motion constituted reversible error.
Gregg engaged Richard M. Egbert (Egbert), a Massachusetts attorney, to defend him against felony charges that, if proven, could result in his imprisonment for a good portion of the rest of his life. [4] Egbert first appeared at Gregg's bail hearing, and he was allowed by the court to enter his appearance pro hac vice at the arraignment. Egbert then selected a Rhode Island attorney, Edward J. Romano (Romano), to serve as local counsel. See Super. R.Crim. P. 50(c). [5] The countdown toward trial began at the latest in June 1992 when defendants were indicted. Pretrial conferences were set for November 14, 1994. On November 7, however, Egbert was reached for trial in a complex cocaine-trafficking case in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts. See generally United States v. Houlihan, 887 F.Supp. 352 (D.Mass.1995). Egbert thought it would probably last about eleven to twelve weeks. On November 10, three weeks before the Rick's Pub robbery trial began and four days before the pretrial conferences were to commence, Gregg moved for a continuance until Egbert could be available to defend him. Neither the state nor any of the remaining defendants objected. Both the defense and the trial justice acknowledged that this case had been kicking around the court system for a number of years. And the trial justice agreed that if Egbert had been a Rhode Island attorney, he would have had no choice but to grant the requested continuance. He noted the relatively hoary status of the case, the other defendants' right to a speedy trial, and the sometimes vexing problem of trying to assemble a number of busy trial lawyers at the same time and in the same place for whatever period would be needed to conduct the trial. But in denying the motion, the trial justice apparently hung his hat on Rule 50(c)'s admonition that local counsel shall be prepared to continue with the proceeding, hearing or trial in the absence of [pro hac vice] counsel. [6] When the trial justice refused to relent and allow the requested continuance, Romano, a lawyer whose legal practice (according to his client) concentrated on appellate and research work, hired Russell Sollitto (Sollitto) as Gregg Moran's substitute trial lawyer, and Sollitto entered his appearance the following Monday. Sollitto told the trial justice that Gregg Moran still wanted Egbert to represent him. But the trial justice was unmoved by this plea and ordered the trial to begin without Egbert's being present. [7] Jury selection, trial, and convictions of all defendants soon followed.
We have recognized that an accused's right to select his or her own attorney to defend against criminal charges has a central role in our adversary system of justice. See State v. Dias, 118 R.I. 499, 502, 374 A.2d 1028, 1029 (1977); see also United States v. Laura, 607 F.2d 52, 56, 57 (3d Cir.1979) (in noting that the most important decision a defendant makes in shaping his defense is his selection of an attorney, the court commented that (1) [a]ttorneys are not fungible, as are eggs, apples and oranges[;] they may differ as to their trial strategy, their oratory style, or the importance they give to particular legal issues and (2) the defendant's ability to select an attorney allows him to choose an individual in whom he has confidence[;][w]ith this choice, the intimacy and confidentiality which are important to an effective attorney-client relationship can be nurtured). Although a criminal defendant's right to the attorney of his or her choice is not absolute, it does command a presumption in favor of its being honored. See, e.g., Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 164, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 1700, 100 L.Ed.2d 140, 152 (1988). The trial justice must therefore steer clear of the Scylla and Charbdis [ sic ] of extremes. At one extreme, `a myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay can render the right to counsel an empty formality.' At the opposite extreme, `it is not every denial of a request for more time' that violates the right to counsel of choice. Gandy v. Alabama, 569 F.2d 1318, 1322-23 (5th Cir.1978). Admittedly the decision to grant a trial continuance is usually one that is committed to the sound discretion of the trial justice. See, e.g., State v. Bleau, 668 A.2d 642, 645 (R.I.1995); State v. Kennedy, 586 A.2d 1089, 1091 (R.I.1991). But discretion can be abused. See State v. Farman, 600 A.2d 726 (R.I.1992). A sustainable exercise of discretion in this context requires the trial justice to balance carefully the presumption in favor of the defendant's right to trial counsel of choice and the public's interest in the prompt, effective, and efficient administration of justice. See id. at 728; see also United States v. Burton, 584 F.2d 485, 489-90 (D.C.Cir.1978) (stripping away the opportunity to prepare for trial is tantamount to denying altogether the assistance of counsel, adding that [t]he condition of most criminal dockets demands reasonably prompt disposition of cases; when cases are set far in advance for a day certain, an unreasonable delay in one case only serves to delay other cases, and this carries the potential for prejudice to the rights of other defendants); Gandy, 569 F.2d at 1323 ([t]he right to choose counsel may not be subverted to obstruct the orderly procedure in the courts or to interfere with the fair administration of justice[;][i]t is a right and a proper tool of the defendant; it cannot be used merely as a manipulative monkey wrench). Moreover, a dawdling defendant need not be rewarded with additional time once he or she has frittered away his or her fair opportunity to proceed to trial with counsel of choice. See Bleau, 668 A.2d at 646; Kennedy, 586 A.2d at 1091. On the other hand, the wheels of justice cannot churn so fast that a defendant's constitutional right to counsel of choice turns to butter. See Gandy, 569 F.2d at 1322; see also Farman, 600 A.2d at 728 (although noting that the trial justice's commendable desire to move a case along must be balanced against the defendant's right to be represented by counsel in whom he had a reasonable degree of confidence, the court held that the balance there should tip in favor of defendant's right to a reasonably prepared attorney in whom he had confidence and with whom he had at least a working relationship). Given these countervailing considerations, it follows ineluctably that each case must turn on its own circumstances. See, e.g., Gandy, 569 F.2d at 1324. Some of the factors to be weighed in the balance include the promptness of the continuance motion and the length of time requested; the age and intricacy of the case; the inconvenience to the parties, witnesses, jurors, counsel, and the court; whether the request appears to be legitimate or merely contrived foot dragging; whether the defendant contributed to the circumstances giving rise to the request; whether the defendant in fact has other competent and prepared trial counsel ready to pinch-hit; whether there are multiple codefendants, making calendar control more difficult than usual; and any other relevant factor made manifest by the record. See, e.g., United States v. Mendoza-Salgado, 964 F.2d 993, 1015 (10th Cir.1992) (adding that courts may consider whether the other competent counsel was hired as lead or associate counsel); Gandy, 569 F.2d at 1324. [8]
Moving from the general to the specific, we are persuaded that an even-handed application of the above-listed factors to the circumstances here warrants the conclusion that Gregg Moran's motion for a trial continuance should have been granted. First, the motion was timely filed; the affected defendant did not wait to move for a continuance until the very last minute before trial or, even worse, until the trial was already under way. Cf. State v. Ashness, 461 A.2d 659, 664 (R.I.1983) (noting, inter alia, that since defendant waited until the start of trial to request a continuance, the necessity for the efficient and effective administration of criminal justice outweighed [his] interest in securing counsel of his choice). Second, his requested delay appeared to be for legitimate reasons rather than merely a defense stratagem designed to postpone or avoid the day of reckoning. Third, the local counsel, Romano, had not been retained by Gregg Moran to serve as his substitute trial lawyer, nor did he appear to have the experience or the relationship with the client that would be needed to do so. Rather, he had been hired by Egbert to assist him with the legal research and with such other contributory tasks as might have been required for Egbert to prepare for and conduct the trial. Thus, although Rule 50(c) required Romano to be prepared to continue with the trial in the absence of pro hac vice counsel, he did not appear in fact to be so prepared, and most critically, he did not share Egbert's designation as defendant's chosen trial counsel. Moreover, the last-minute stand-in trial counsel, Sollitto, had precious little time to prepare. Cf. Farman, 600 A.2d at 728 (in balancing the need for an expeditious trial against the quality of the preparation of this case by the second and the third attorneys, the scale should tip in favor of defendant's right to a reasonably prepared attorney in whom he had confidence and with whom he had at least a working relationship). To be sure, the Rick's Pub robbery case had been pending for quite some time when the trial justice had to decide the continuance motion. And assembling busy counsel representing multiple defendants for a lengthy trial of this nature is rarely, if ever, an easy task. Added to these concerns was the speedy-trial motion previously filed by Gregoire and granted by another Superior Court justice. But even to the trial justice none of these counterbalancing factors (whether considered alone or in the aggregate) outweighed Gregg Moran's right to be represented at trial by counsel of his choice  if only Massachusetts attorney Egbert had been a member of the Rhode Island bar. But because he was not, the motion was denied when it otherwise would have been granted. Primarily for this reason, and because Rule 50(c) should not be interpreted to supersede or compromise the presumption in favor of honoring a defendant's counsel of choice, [9] we hold that the trial justice abused his discretion in denying the continuance motion. We also observe that a trial justice has substantially more practical control over a lawyer like Egbert, who has and continues to represent a number of clients in Rhode Island, than he or she would have with an out-of-state lawyer who only appears here once in a blue moon and thus may have no strong personal or professional interest to protect in adhering to the court's scheduling orders. Moreover, as indicated previously, there is no evidence to suggest that the reason for the requested continuance was anything other than what was represented to the trial justice, namely, that Egbert was in the middle of trying another case. Most tellingly, less constitutionally drastic options were available to the trial justice other than the one he selected. If the trial justice did not wish to jeopardize the other defendant's right to a speedy trial, he could have severed Gregg Moran's trial until his counsel of choice was available and proceeded to try the case against the remaining defendants. Alternatively he could have continued the case to a date certain when Egbert's present trial would likely be over and then reevaluate his options vis-à-vis each defendant on that date. Instead, he took the constitutionally least desirable course when he forced Gregg Moran to trial with a lawyer other than the one he had selected for this purpose and with one who, to boot, had an inadequate opportunity to prepare for the trial. For these reasons we conclude that Gregg Moran should be given a new trial.
Contending that there was no evidence that he aimed a loaded gun at the police during the apartment fracas, Gregg Moran also claims the trial justice should have granted his judgment-of-acquittal motion on counts 11 through 13 (charging him with the deadly weapon assault of three officers). Moran forthrightly concedes that this argument was not advanced in the lower court. And since it does not concern a novel rule of law reasonably unknown to defense counsel at the time of trial, we deem it waived. Compare State v. Jeremiah, 546 A.2d 183, 186 (R.I.1988) (noting the wellestablished rule that `[t]o constitute an assault with a dangerous weapon it is necessary that the weapon should be presented at the party intended to be assaulted, within the distance at which it may do execution') with State v. Cardoza, 649 A.2d 745, 748 (R.I.1994) (discussing a long line of cases holding that an issue not raised below is waived on appeal unless, inter alia, it concerns a claim so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably available to counsel at the time of trial). [10]