Opinion ID: 1611086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Federal Constitutional Rights

Text: The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. The Supreme Court has recognized the efficacy of having the assistance of counsel during the adversarial procedure of a criminal trial. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 158-159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 1697, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988) (... the Amendment secures the right to the assistance of counsel, by appointment if necessary, in a trial for any serious crime.), citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). The assistance of counsel may be secured in various waysthe hiring of an attorney's services by the criminal defendant or by another on behalf of the defendant, the attorney's volunteering of services pro bono publico, or the court's appointment of private counsel or the public defender if the defendant is indigent. Although the essential aim of the Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant..., the Sixth Amendment also encompasses ... the right to select and be represented by one's preferred attorney. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. at 1697. A criminal defendant represented by an otherwise qualified attorney paid for by the defendant or paid for by someone on behalf of the defendant, or who has accepted the donation of an attorney's services, has the right to counsel of his choice. The Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom that defendant can afford to hire, or who is willing to represent the defendant even though he is without funds. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 624-625, 109 S.Ct. 2646, 2652, 105 L.Ed.2d 528 (1989). However, [t]he Sixth Amendment right to choose one's own counsel is circumscribed in several important respects. Id. The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that a criminal defendant who has been appointed counsel has no right under the Sixth Amendment to the counsel of his choice: The Amendment guarantees defendants in criminal cases the right to adequate representation, but those who do not have the means to hire their own lawyers have no cognizable complaint so long as they are adequately represented by attorneys appointed by the courts. [A] defendant may not insist on representation by an attorney he cannot afford. Wheat, supra, at 159, 108 S.Ct. at 1697. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. at 624, 109 S.Ct. at 2652. This distinction was again noted by the Supreme Court in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 151, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 2565, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006), where the Court held ... the right to counsel of choice does not extend to defendants who require counsel to be appointed for them. The Supreme Court has found structural error requiring reversal, and a violation of the Sixth Amendment, where a criminal defendant has been denied his right to retained counsel of choice, or where a criminal defendant has been denied the representation of counsel of choice willing to donate his services. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 150, 126 S.Ct. at 2564. Where the right to be assisted by counsel of one's choice is wrongly denied, no harmless-error analysis which inquires into counsel's effectiveness, or prejudice to the defendant, is required: Deprivation of the right is complete when the defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by the lawyer he wants, regardless of the quality of the representation he received. To argue otherwise is to confuse the right to counsel of choicewhich is the right to a particular lawyer regardless of comparative effectivenesswith the right to effective counselwhich imposes a baseline requirement of competence on whatever lawyer is chosen or appointed. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 148, 126 S.Ct. at 2563. Thus, under the Federal Constitution, a criminal defendant who has hired his own counsel, or who has counsel retained on his behalf, has a right to both effective representation and to counsel of his choice. The same is true of a criminal defendant whose counsel has volunteered his services. A criminal defendant who has been appointed counsel, whether a private attorney or a public defender, only has the right under the federal constitution to effective representation.