Summary
In US v. Gonzalez-Lopez, a five member majority, per Justice Scalia, held that when a court wrongfully denies a defendant's counsel of choice, the remedy is automatic reversal, not some form of harmless error review. The Supreme Court's decision, by refusing to balance a defendant's rights against a trial's overall fairness, epitomizes rule-based jurisprudence. Rule-based jurisprudence operates by identifying constitutional principles and then positing rigid safeguards against their infringement. Recent developments in constitutional criminal law may indicate that the current Court is more inclined than previous Courts to adopt bright-line rules to protect the constitutional rights of defendants. If this indicates a trend for future jurisprudence, the question arises as to what drives the trend -- a methodological preference for limited judicial discretion or context-specific factors. Although constitutional choice analysis did not clearly dictate a bright-line rule protecting counsel of choice in Gonzalez-Lopez, the criminal procedure context justifies the use of such a rule.
See the full content of this document
Extract
Gonzalez-Lopez and Its Bright-Line Rule: Result of Broad Judicial Philosophy or Context-Specific Principles?
I. INTRODUCTION
In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, a five member majority, per Justice Scalia, held that when a court wrongfully denies a defendant's counsel of choice, the remedy is automatic reversal, not some form of harmless error review.1 The Supreme Court's decision, by refusing to balance a defendant's rights against a trial's overall fairness, epitomizes rule-based jurisprudence. The decision, however, raises the question of whedier the bright-line rule it adopted arose from a broad judicial philosophy that favors limited judicial discretion or from the application of context-specific factors. This Note acknowledges that a mediodological preference for limited judicial discretion likely influenced the majority opinion, but argues that considerations arising out of the constitutional rights of those accused of crimes also justified the bright-line rule in this case. These context-specific principles are found in literature, including the work of Jeffrey L. Fisher,2 the advocate who argued Gonzalez-Lopez. With this case, Fisher completed a triumvirate of successful Supreme Court arguments that started with Crawford v. Washington3 and Blakely v. Washington.4Crawford, Blakely, and Gonzalez-Lopez share a common characteristic: each relies on a bright-line rule that eschews a balancing of the interests of the government and the defendant. The former two cases support Fisher's "constitutional choice" analysis, which suggests that the Court has a textual justification for applying bright-line rules where the text of the Constitution reflects a choice rather than a value.5 The use of a bright-line rule in Gonzalez-Lopez, however, is not clearly justified by this constitutional choice analysis, but by context-specific factors that encourage more mechanical protection of criminal rights. Even though Fisher's constitutional choice analysis does not explain the use of a bright- line rule in Gonzalez-Lopez, the presence of context-specific factors, independent of a general preference for limiting judicial discretion, justified the majority's use of a bright-line rule in this case.Rule-based jurisprudence operates by identifying constitutional principles and then positing rigid safeguards against their infringement. The safeguard, or bright-line rule, that emerges from this process encourages predictability in the law6 and represents a synthesis of values and principles.7 Constitutional interpretation based on such absolute rules limits judicial discretion8 and ensures that judges enforce individual rights - particularly in criminal cases, "when it may be unpopular to do so."9 When universal rules govern each litigant's case, the system fosters a sense of true equality before the law.10 Although modern commentators disagree on the merits of bright-line rules, it was the norm in early constitutional law.11Confidence in the bright-line approach eroded as it often produced a poor fit between doctrine and the real world.12 A balancing test can address this problem by facilitating an equitable result while still respecting constitutional values.13 Like a bright-line rule, a balancing test identifies the constitutional principle, but then proceeds to balance that principle against a competing interest.14 Justice Holmes, for example, favored such balancing so that the absolutes of the past would yield to the practicalities of the day.15 Although his view eventually carried the d...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
