## Facts

- Cuauhtémoc Gonzalez-Lopez was charged in the Eastern District of Missouri with conspiracy to distribute marijuana.
- His family retained local counsel, John Fahle, and later retained California attorney Joseph Low to participate in the defense.
- The district court initially permitted Low to appear *pro hac vice* but later revoked and then denied *pro hac vice* admission based on alleged violations of a local courtroom rule and Missouri professional-conduct rules.
- The court barred Low from representing Gonzalez-Lopez at trial and also restricted Low from sitting at counsel table or conferring with trial counsel; a marshal enforced separation.
- Gonzalez-Lopez proceeded to trial represented by a different attorney and was convicted by a jury.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court’s erroneous denial of a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to be represented by retained counsel of choice is subject to harmless-error review.
2. Whether such an erroneous denial constitutes structural error requiring automatic reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed reversal of the conviction.
- The Court held that an erroneous deprivation of the right to retained counsel of choice requires reversal without any showing of prejudice.
- The Court classified the error as structural and not amenable to harmless-error analysis.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment protects a distinct right to counsel of choice for defendants who retain counsel, separate from the right to effective assistance of counsel.
- The violation is complete when the defendant is wrongly prevented from being represented by the lawyer he retained and selected; prejudice need not be proven.
- Denial of counsel of choice is structural error because its consequences are unquantifiable and cannot be reliably assessed through outcome-based review.
- The right to counsel of choice is not absolute; trial courts have wide latitude to enforce conflict rules, ethical standards, qualification requirements, and scheduling needs, and indigent defendants have no right to demand a particular appointed lawyer.

## Conclusion

The Court held that when a trial court erroneously excludes a defendant’s retained, chosen attorney, the Sixth Amendment is violated in a structural manner, requiring automatic reversal of the conviction regardless of the competence of substitute counsel or the likely effect on the verdict.


United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006)