State of New Hampshire v. Carlos Gonzalez, III
170 N.H. 398
| N.H. | 2017Background
- Defendant Carlos Gonzalez was indicted on multiple counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault alleging abuse of his stepdaughter (L.J.) in the early 1990s.
- Defendant sought admission pro hac vice for two Massachusetts attorneys, Walter and Alexandria Jacobs; the trial court initially granted both admissions (with conditions).
- The State later revealed Walter had been a physician to L.J. (and family) during the relevant period and that both Jacobses had personal ties to the victim/family; the State moved to vacate the pro hac vice admissions and preclude them from cross-examining certain witnesses.
- The trial court vacated the Jacobses’ pro hac vice admissions and precluded them from cross-examining key witnesses, citing: risk they could become witnesses, impairment of truth-seeking, possible inadequacy of defense if barred from cross-examining, Walter’s divided loyalties as a former physician, and Walter’s omission of prior medical disciplinary history.
- The defendant’s local counsel withdrew; defendant was tried with court-appointed counsel, convicted on two counts, and appealed arguing the vacatur violated his right to chosen counsel.
Issues
| Issue | State (Plaintiff) Argument | Gonzalez (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether vacating pro hac vice admissions implicates state constitutional right to chosen counsel | Admission decisions may be reviewed to protect court’s interest in fair, orderly proceedings | Once admitted, pro hac vice counsel cannot be disqualified under stricter standards than local bar members; vacatur violated right to chosen counsel | Yes it implicates the right, but the right is not absolute and may be limited to protect fair, ethical administration of justice; court balanced interests and did not err |
| Whether trial court may reconsider and vacate prior pro hac vice admission based on newly disclosed facts | Court may revisit admissions when new material information appears that affects suitability | Reconsideration amounted to improper disqualification after admission | Trial court sustainably exercised its continuous discretion to correct prior orders upon discovery of new, material facts |
| Whether facts required an evidentiary hearing before vacating admissions | Material facts were undisputed; no hearing required | Court resolved factual disputes without a hearing, requiring remand | No error — material facts were undisputed and an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary |
| Whether vacatur was an unsustainable exercise of discretion (prejudice to defense) | Vacatur protected court’s interest: potential witness conflict, truth-seeking, attorney candor, and ethical duties | Vacatur deprived defendant of chosen counsel and prejudiced defense | Trial court reasonably relied on five objective factors; decision was sustainable and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (trial court has latitude balancing right to counsel of choice against fairness and orderly administration)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (right to counsel of choice is circumscribed by court’s interest in orderly, ethical proceedings)
- Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States, 879 F.2d 975 (1st Cir. 1989) (denial of pro hac vice implicates constitutional concerns)
- United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990) (pro hac vice admissions may be denied more freely than revocation after admission)
- United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507 (11th Cir. 1994) (discusses “divided loyalties” when former-client confidences could be implicated)
- Ries v. United States, 100 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir. 1996) (courts may deny pro hac vice admission to prevent disorderly administration where attorney’s conduct suggests noncompliance)