ILNews

7th Circuit expands inquiry to implicit motion for new attorney

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals expanded caselaw today when ruling on a defendant’s request for new counsel.

The Circuit judges – which included retired United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sitting by designation – found the reasoning United States v. Zillges, 978 F.2d 369, 371 (7th Cir. 1992), applies whether a complaint is phrased in terms of an express motion for a new attorney or whether a defendant only makes an implicit motion.

Zillges holds that the court has a duty to inquire into the basis for the client’s objection to counsel and should withhold a ruling until reasons are made known. When an accused raises for the first time a complaint about his attorney, the court must rule on the matter.

During the second day of his trial for illegal possession of a firearm by a felon and various drug-distribution offenses, Adam Williams spoke to the judge outside of the presence of the jury about how he hadn’t see one of the video recordings played until it was shown by the prosecution, even though he requested to review all video prior to trial. He said he felt his attorney failed him.  U.S. District Judge James Moody told him it was “too late,” that the case would go forward, and that he didn’t really care what Williams thought.

Even the government admitted the court should have inquired further into William’s concerns instead of abruptly silencing him.

Because it was the first time the 7th Circuit addressed when a District Court didn’t inquire into a defendant’s concerns about his attorney, the judges established that the District Court’s abuse of discretion will only result in a new trial if Williams can show prejudice. Williams was unable to satisfy his burden under either prong of the test outlined in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), ruled the court in United States of America v. Adam Williams, No. 09-3174.

The appellate court also delved into the recent rulings of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), and United States v. Skoien, 587 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2009). Williams argued that the felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1), is unconstitutional as applied to him. The Circuit judges examined his claim using the intermediate scrutiny framework without determining that it would be the precise test applicable to all challenges to gun restrictions.

The government satisfied its burden that its objective to keep guns out of the hands of violent offenders is an important one and it is advanced by means substantially related to that objection.

“And although we recognize that § 922(g)(1) may be subject to an overbreadth challenge at some point because of its disqualification of all felons, including those who are non-violent, that is not the case for Williams,” who as a violent offender isn’t the ideal candidate to challenge the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(1), wrote Judge Michael Kanne. Because he was convicted of a violent felony, his claim that the law unconstitutionally infringes on his right to possess a firearm is without merit.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT