Right To Counsel of One's Choice

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

III. Right to counsel of one's choice

A. Indigent defendant

In Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988), the Supreme Court held that there is no right to counsel of one's choice, if indigent. The Court held:

While the right to select and be represented by one's preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth Amendment, the essential aim of the Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant rather than to ensure that a Defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers.

Id. at 159.

B. Non-indigent defendant

In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006), the Supreme Court held that a non-indigent defendant is entitled to counsel of choice. The Court stated: "[T]he purpose of the rights set forth in [the Sixth Amendment] is to ensure a fair trial; but it does not follow that the rights can be disregarded so long as the trial is, on the whole, fair." Id. at 145.

In Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, the Supreme Court held that, if there is a conflict of interest, the trial court may require new counsel, which may deny the defendant the right to counsel of choice. Moreover, a defendant has no right to...