Something that will NEVER happen in S’pore
UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ (No. 05-352) 399 F. 3d 924
The issue before the Supreme Court was: whether a trial court’s erroneous deprivation of a criminal defendant’s choice of counsel entitles him to a reversal of his conviction.
Under the 6th Admendment:
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. (Ie, the 6th gives the accused a right to a defence counsel, a right that is oft run roughshod in S’pore)
Held (By 5-4) : A trial court’s erroneous deprivation of a criminal defendant’s choice of counsel entitles him to reversal of his conviction
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy and Thomas, JJ., joined.
There are 2 ways to see this:
1) Man gets accquited conviction reversed on technicality
or
2) Reaffirmation that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and that you don’t try to mess with the 6th Admendment.
I believe that this case was decided correctly, but still i’d be apprehensive to accquit someone who is charged with a capital offence reverse the conviction of someone on mere account of technicality.
Via Volokh
I don’t know how it’s done in Singapore, but the defendant here was not “acquitted,” i.e. he was NOT found to be “not guilty.” His conviction was “reversed,” meaning that his original conviction was annulled. The United States government will now decide whether or not to retry the defendant, although that’s terribly unlikely since their star witness against him had lied under oath in the first trial.
Comment by Bill Logan — June 27, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
Ah, thanks for the correction. However, if the state can elect to retry the defendant, won’t that run afoul of the double jeopardy clause (which i believe is provided for by the 5th Admendment) since it’ll be effectively putting the accused on trial twice?
Comment by nevinyrral — June 28, 2006 @ 12:54 am