81 A.3d 662
N.J.2014Background
- On the morning jury trial was to begin, defendant Raymond Kates learned his lead attorney (Jeffrey Klavens, an Assistant Deputy Public Defender) would likely be deployed overseas during trial, leaving second-chair counsel (Dionne Stanfield) to proceed.
- Kates, through counsel, requested a postponement so he could retain private counsel; he expressed concern about switching attorneys midtrial and that second-chair was less familiar with the case.
- The trial court summarily denied the adjournment request and proceeded with trial without eliciting additional facts or applying a balancing analysis.
- Kates was convicted of second-degree eluding and fourth-degree resisting arrest by flight; he appealed based on deprivation of his right to counsel of choice.
- The Appellate Division ordered a new trial, finding the trial court failed to reasonably balance Kates’s request against the court’s need to proceed, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division for substantially the same reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of an adjournment to retain chosen counsel violated Sixth Amendment | State argued trial court has discretion to manage its calendar and may deny continuance | Kates argued denial deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice and is structural error | Court held denial without reasoned Ferguson/Burton analysis required a new trial; deprivation found where court summarily denies or abuses discretion |
| Standard courts must apply when a defendant requests adjournment to obtain counsel | State: availability of other competent counsel can justify denial | Kates: availability of other counsel is not a substitute for right to choose | Court held courts must apply Ferguson/Burton factors in a reasoned, fact-sensitive balancing; availability of other counsel is relevant but not dispositive |
| Whether structural error is automatically triggered by any denial of counsel-of-choice request | State: denial does not always produce structural error if court reasonably balances factors | Kates: deprivation of counsel of choice is structural error, no prejudice required | Court held structural error arises only when court summarily denies request without considering factors or abuses discretion in analysis; reasoned denial does not invoke structural error |
| Scope of inquiry required before denying continuance | State urged that lengthy inquiry is unnecessary and courts have latitude | Kates urged court should meaningfully consider factors before denying | Court ruled that a lengthy factual inquiry is not required but a reasoned, thoughtful analysis of Ferguson factors must occur before denial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (recognizes right to counsel of choice and treats its deprivation as structural error)
- State v. Ferguson, 198 N.J. Super. 395 (App. Div. 1984) (adopts multi-factor test for continuance requests to retain counsel)
- United States v. Burton, 584 F.2d 485 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (provides factors for evaluating continuance to obtain counsel)
- State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 522 (2011) (observes balancing is fact-sensitive and trial courts have broad discretion)
- State v. McLaughlin, 310 N.J. Super. 242 (App. Div. 1998) (supports that reasoned denial of continuance is permissible)
- Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (addresses substitution of appointed counsel and limits on choice for indigent defendants)
- State v. Williams, 404 N.J. Super. 147 (App. Div. 2008) (notes indigent defendants with appointed counsel lack right to choose counsel)