Colorado man argues last-minute switch in public defenders is unconstitutional
Petitions of the week
on Aug 1, 2024
at 7:06 am
The Petitions of the Week column highlights some of the cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here.
The Sixth Amendment gives everyone who stands trial for a crime the right to an attorney. For poor defendants, this means that they have the right to be assigned a public defender, legal-aid lawyer, or court-appointed attorney. But the right also extends to more affluent defendants, by constraining courts from dismissing their chosen attorney against their will. This week, we highlight petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether the Sixth Amendment similarly protects defendants assigned a lawyer from being handed off to new counsel without consent.
William Davis was driving in a state park outside Denver, Colorado, when a parks officer tried to pull him over for speeding. Davis did not stop. Having already lost his license after twice driving with it previously suspended, Davis sped away. The officer called for backup and gave chase. With the officers still in pursuit, Davis eventually gave up and drove home, where he was arrested and charged with fleeing police, reckless driving, and driving without a license.
Davis was appointed a public defender. A few weeks before trial, Davis asked for more time — known as a continuance — because his attorney had another trial on the same day and more investigating to do. The prosecutor did not object. But the judge denied Davis’ request.
With his attorney unable to defend two trials in one day, Davis filed a second motion to delay his trial, explaining that he was opposed to receiving a new public defender so close to trial. The judge, who was frustrated that the case was going to trial at all, rather than ending in a plea deal, refused. Reasoning that the case was straightforward and most of the preparations had already been completed, the judge concluded that any new lawyer could quickly get up to speed.
On the day of trial, when his new public defender made his first appearance in the case, Davis asked for a continuance one final time. The judge again denied his request. Davis was convicted of all three offenses.
Davis appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which reversed. The state court of appeals agreed that indigent defendants are entitled to continued representation by their court-appointed lawyers. It sent the case back to the trial court for it to take another look at Davis’s request to keep his original public defender, stressing that the lower court should give “great weight to Davis’s wish for continued representation.”
But the Colorado Supreme Court in turn reversed that ruling and upheld Davis’ conviction. In a parallel decision raising the same question, the state supreme court held that the Sixth Amendment only provides a right to continued representation for defendants who choose their lawyer in the first place. Defendants who are appointed a lawyer, the court explained, do not have that same right — unless they can show that changing attorneys would be detrimental. Because the trial judge had concluded that a new public defender could adequately represent Davis, the state supreme court reasoned that moving forward with trial over Davis’ objection was consistent with the Sixth Amendment.
In Davis v. Colorado, Davis asks the justices to grant review and reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling. He argues that state supreme courts, as well as the federal courts of appeals, are divided over whether indigent defendants have the same right as more affluent ones to continued representation by the attorney who is already representing them. The Colorado Supreme Court’s position creates a “two-class view of the Sixth Amendment,” Davis writes, where only defendants of means “can confide in their counsel with assurance that the person who represents them today will also represent them tomorrow.”
A list of this week’s featured petitions is below:
Thompson v. United States
23-1095
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.
Davis v. Colorado
23-1096
Issue: Whether, once counsel has been appointed for an indigent defendant, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant the same right to continued representation by that counsel as is enjoyed by defendants affluent enough to retain counsel.
Uber Technologies, Inc. v. California
23-1130
Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act allows state officials to litigate claims for monetary relief on behalf of people who agreed to arbitrate those claims.
Lyft, Inc. v. California
23-1132
Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law authorizing public officials to pursue claims for individualized monetary relief in court for the benefit of individuals who agreed to resolve those claims in arbitration, thereby circumventing those individuals’ arbitration agreements.
Habelt v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc.
23-1134
Issue: Whether a named plaintiff who initiated a suit from which he was never dismissed or removed, who retains a financial stake in the litigation’s outcome, and who could be precluded from pursuing further redress has standing to appeal.
