Opinion ID: 514214
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scopo's Right to Counsel

Text: 10 At trial, Scopo appeared pro se, assisted by counsel appointed for him by the court, because his preferred attorney was unavailable. Scopo contends that the court's refusal to grant him a continuance of the trial date so that he could be represented by counsel of his choice deprived him of his rights under the Sixth Amendment. Given the sequence of events described below, we disagree. 11 The original Persico trial began in October 1985 and lasted some eight months. Seven weeks into that trial, Scopo was granted a severance for reasons related to his health. In 1986, Scopo went to trial in Salerno I; convicted in that case, he was sentenced on January 13, 1987, to a 100-year term in prison. On January 21, 1987, Judge Keenan held a scheduling conference in the present case and entered an order scheduling the trial of Scopo and Montemarano to begin on May 4, 1987. 12 At the original trial, Scopo had been represented by Barry Slotnick, Esq. An associate of Slotnick attended the January 21 conference and unsuccessfully opposed the May 4 trial date, advising the court that, because of existing trial commitments, Slotnick would not be available in the present case until June at the very earliest. In light of this representation, the court scheduled another conference for February 6 to explore the matter of who would represent Scopo at trial. 13 At the February 6 conference, Slotnick revealed that he had other trial commitments that would keep him occupied past June and probably through August. He urged the court to postpone trial of Scopo until the conclusion of the appeals in Salerno I, reasoning that if Scopo's 100-year sentence were affirmed, a plea agreement could be reached and a trial would be unnecessary. The court rejected this argument, noting the likelihood that the appeals in Salerno I would not be decided before sometime in 1988, the need to try Montemarano in any event, and the nearly complete overlap between the charges against Montemarano and Scopo; in addition, a third severed defendant might also eventually be tried. Considerations of judicial efficiency thus suggested that Montemarano and Scopo be tried together in order to minimize the number of times the court or the government would be required to conduct lengthy trials on the same charges. Accordingly, the court refused to alter the May 4 trial date. It stated that it would relieve Slotnick as counsel and instructed him to return for a conference on February 20 to report on Scopo's progress in obtaining new counsel. 14 On February 20, Slotnick did not appear because he was ill. Slotnick's associate reaffirmed that Slotnick's trial schedule was as it had been represented at the February 6 conference. The court stated that the May 4 trial date was firm, reiterated that Scopo should obtain another attorney, and scheduled another conference for February 27. 15 At the February 27 conference, Slotnick informed the court that Scopo had attempted to retain for the May 4 trial the attorney who had represented him in Salerno I, but that that attorney was unavailable. Slotnick again urged that trial be postponed until September, but he conceded that it was a realistic possibility that he would not be available for trial until November or December. The court denied the request and scheduled another conference, ordering that Scopo be brought to attend in person. 16 At a March 12 conference, Scopo appeared and stated that he had contacted two other attorneys but that they were otherwise occupied. He urged the court to delay the trial until Slotnick could represent him. The court denied the request. Noting that from January 21 on, it had repeatedly directed that if Slotnick could not be available in May Scopo was to obtain other counsel, the court again directed Scopo to obtain another attorney and stated that if he did not, he would be required to go to trial without an attorney. The court scheduled another conference for March 20. 17 Further conferences were held on March 20, March 27, March 30, and April 3. Scopo reported that he had not retained new counsel and that he wanted Slotnick to represent him. At each conference, the court advised Scopo that if he did not obtain new counsel, he would be required to proceed pro se. On March 30, Scopo filed a formal motion for a continuance of the May 4 trial date. The court denied the motion in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 7, 1987, summarizing the events since January 21, and noting that Slotnick had been unable to guarantee that he would be available for the present trial even as early as September, that the court had repeatedly ordered Scopo to retain new counsel, that Scopo's efforts in that regard had been half-hearted, and that the time afforded Scopo to obtain new counsel had been more than reasonable. The court concluded that, in all the circumstances, the orderly administration of justice required that the trial proceed as scheduled. 18 Another conference was held on April 13. Scopo reported that he had not obtained a new attorney and that Slotnick was his attorney of choice. The court stated that it would appoint a stand-by attorney to assist Scopo at trial. 19 Over Scopo's objection, the court appointed stand-by trial counsel for Scopo on April 22. That attorney, Austin Campriello, Esq., assisted Scopo throughout the trial. Scopo allowed him to make the opening statement and summation on Scopo's behalf, to make motions, to object to evidence, and to cross-examine the government's witnesses. 20 The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant in a criminal proceeding the right to the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Recognition of this right requires that a defendant ... be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S.Ct. 55, 58, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). Nonetheless, the right to choose one's own counsel is circumscribed in several important respects, Wheat v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 1697, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988), and must at times give way to the need for the fair and efficient administration of justice, United States v. Cicale, 691 F.2d 95, 106 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1082, 103 S.Ct. 1771, 76 L.Ed.2d 344 (1983). 21 The matter of whether or not to adjourn a trial date is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge, and it is not every denial of a request for more time that violates due process even if the party fails to offer evidence or is compelled to defend without counsel. Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 849, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964); see Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, 446, 60 S.Ct. 321, 322, 84 L.Ed. 377 (1940). Thus,  'where the inability of retained counsel to serve gives promise of unreasonable delay or inconvenience in completing the trial, the court may require the defendant to secure other counsel.'  United States v. Cicale, 691 F.2d at 106 (quoting United States v. Bentvena, 319 F.2d 916, 936 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 940, 84 S.Ct. 345, 11 L.Ed.2d 271 (1963)). [O]nly an unreasoning and arbitrary 'insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay' violates the right to the assistance of counsel. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 1616-1617, 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983) (quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. at 589, 84 S.Ct. at 849). 22 We see no abuse of discretion in the court's insistence on the May 4, 1987 date. The date was set three and one-half months in advance; though repeated requests were made for an adjournment until September, there was no guarantee, as Slotnick conceded, that Slotnick would be available in September. The case had been pending more than two years, Montemarano was awaiting trial, and it made little sense to try him and Scopo separately in light of the overlapping charges. Scopo was forewarned in January 1987 that Slotnick could not represent him at trial in May, and from that time on, the court repeatedly made it clear that it would not adjourn the May 4 date and ordered Scopo to find new counsel. Plainly, Scopo was given ample opportunity to select another attorney to represent him at trial, and the denial of an adjournment did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights. 23