United States v. Sidney Seller
645 F.3d 830
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sellers was charged in Indiana with possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell and firearm offenses; police found a loaded handgun in his car during a sting operation.
- Sellers initially retained Wiener as lead counsel; Oppenheimer entered to assist as secondary counsel, though he never had authority from Seller to be lead counsel.
- Pretrial schedule set by magistrate and district court anticipated a continuance if new counsel appeared; deadlines for motions were extended contingent on a continuance.
- Oppenheimer filed a motion to suppress; Sellers sought a continuance to allow his chosen counsel Wiener to enter and prepare; district court denied both motions.
- Sellers attempted to replace Oppenheimer with Wiener and later with Volpe; trial proceeded with Oppenheimer still as counsel and Volpe offered but not prepared; Sellers was ultimately tried and convicted.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit vacated the judgment, held that Sellers was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choosing, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a continuance to substitute counsel violated the Sixth Amendment | Sellers argues denial was erroneous and arbitrary | United States asserts scheduling interests justify denial | Yes; denial was arbitrary and violated Six Amendment |
| Whether the district court properly balanced right to counsel against calendar and fairness concerns | Court failed to balance interests; focused on schedule | Court considered calendar impact and deadlines | No; court failed to adequately balance competing interests |
| Whether the denial of the continuance constitutes a structural error requiring automatic reversal | Structural error due to denial of counsel of choice | No structural error; depends on prejudice | Yes; denial constitutes structural error warranting reversal |
| Whether the court should remand for a new trial given the failure to allow chosen counsel to prepare | Remand to allow new, chosen counsel to prepare | Proceed with existing record if possible | Remand for a new trial with proper counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (right to counsel of choice is a Sixth Amendment safeguard; denial is structural error)
- Carlson v. Jess, 526 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 2008) (court cannot rigidly force 'take the case as found'; require balancing of interests)
- United States v. Smith, 618 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2010) (limits on continuance denials in Sixth Amendment context; balancing consideration)
- United States v. Carrera, 259 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2001) (discretion in granting continuances; requires weighing interests)
- United States v. Santos, 201 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2000) (consideration of circumstances surrounding last-minute continuances)
- United States v. Williams, 576 F.3d 385 (7th Cir. 2009) (need to inquire about defense preparation time; rigid scheduling can be arbitrary)
- Campania Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust, 290 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2002) (court may balance scheduling with fairness in complex litigation)