ILNews

7th Circuit: Indiana judge violated man's Sixth Amendment right to counsel

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An appellate court has ruled that a senior judge in the Northern District of Indiana violated a man’s Sixth Amendment rights by not allowing him to proceed to trial with the lawyer of his choosing.

That decision came from a three-judge panel on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which included former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was sitting by designation at the Circuit level.

The decision came Friday in the case of U.S. v. Sidney O. Sellers , No. 09-2516, a drug trafficking case from U.S. Judge Rudy Lozano who became a senior judge in the Northern District of Indiana after his retirement in 2007.

As part of a sting operation in early 2008, police and Drug Enforcement Administration officers staked out Sidney Sellers’ car and later pulled him over in Lake County for traffic violations. They found a fully loaded handgun registered in Illinois as well as several bags of crack cocaine. Police charged him with possession with intent to sell crack cocaine and possession of a firearm used in drug trafficking, and he received a 180-month sentence.

Sellers’ attorney representation became the pivotal issue in this case. The Illinois attorney he hired to represent him appointed a secondary counsel who ended up being the person representing Sellers through trial in May 2008. The lead counsel, David Weiner, was expected to begin shortly, but scheduling conflicts detailed in the record prevented him from stepping in, so the secondary attorney, Michael Oppenheimer from Illinois, remained on the case. He missed various pre-trial motion deadlines and ultimately filed a motion for a continuance three days before the trial was to begin because that date conflicted with other cases the other attorney was handling.

Senior Judge Lozano denied the motion and a request to suppress the evidence, explaining that the trial had been set for nearly two months and that Weiner, who was supposed to be lead counsel, hadn’t even filed an appearance at that time. The judge postponed the trial for a week, but that didn’t help Weiner who was still going to be handling another murder trial.

 Oppenheimer renewed his requests for a continuance on grounds he wasn’t prepared as lead counsel, and Sellers indicated he wanted to dismiss Oppenheimer as counsel because he’d wanted Weiner all along, but Senior Judge Lozano declined to postpone the trial. Oppenheimer and a new attorney represented Sellers at trial, again reiterating the need to postpone. Ultimately, Sellers was convicted and sentenced.

On appeal, Judge Michael Kanne sat with authoring Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner and former Justice O’Connor in deciding that the District judge’s refusal to grant Sellers a continuance deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to choice of counsel and he deserved a new trial.

Analyzing the District judge’s reasons for denying the continuance, the appellate panel noted that the pre-trial motions had been late and within a few days before trial, that Sellers’ preferred counsel had not yet filed an appearance, and that the court itself had a practice of requiring any new counsel to “take the case as they find it.”

In a footnote, the panel pointed out that the court’s reliance on missed deadlines as a reason against new counsel or a continuance would, in effect, create a built-in appeal issue for ineffective assistance of counsel. “Under this reasoning, a defendant whose lawyer fails to comply with the court’s deadlines will be saddled with his ineffective counsel precisely because the lawyer is ineffective.”

The panel also pointed to Judge Lozano’s statements that he’d already accommodated the defendant by moving the trial back one week, that the government had timely turned over discovery, that the case wasn’t complex, that the judge had cancelled his attendance at the 7th Circuit judicial conference in Chicago, that the delay would affect other cases in need of trial dates, and that Judge Lozano was using this case to respond to the propensity of other Illinois counsel to request last-minute continuances.

All of these factors show that Judge Lozano’s decision-making on the continuance request was arbitrary and unreasonable,” the panel found.

“The record provides no evidence that the court balanced any of these circumstances against the needs of fairness and the demands of the calendar,” Judge Rovner wrote, citing the landmark Sixth Amendment precedent of U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 144 (2006). “It seems instead that the court stood on unyielding principle – the principle that new counsel must ‘take the case as he finds it;’ the principle that continuances will not be granted for those who request them at the eleventh-hour and miss other deadlines; and the principle that delay of one case will unfairly backlog other cases.”

The 7th Circuit vacated the judgment and sentence and remanded for a new trial and pre-trial proceedings.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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