When you’re facing a DUI charge in Georgia, one of the most critical decisions you’ll make is who will
The Case: A Fight Over Counsel in a Drug Conspiracy Charge
Let’s start with the story behind United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez. Cuauhtemoc Gonzalez-Lopez was charged in federal court in Missouri with conspiracy to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana—a serious felony. He initially hired a local attorney, John Fahle, but soon decided he wanted Joseph Low, a California lawyer, to take the lead. Low flew out to meet Gonzalez-Lopez, and they agreed he’d represent him.
Trouble started when Low tried to join the case officially. In federal court, an out-of-state attorney needs permission to practice through a process called pro hac vice admission. The district judge denied Low’s applications—not once, but multiple times—claiming Low had violated a Missouri ethics rule by contacting Gonzalez-Lopez while he was still represented by Fahle. The judge didn’t stop there: he barred Gonzalez-Lopez from meeting with Low during the trial (except for one brief moment) and forced him to proceed with a different attorney, Karl Dickhaus. A U.S. Marshal even sat between Low and Dickhaus in court to enforce the separation. The jury convicted Gonzalez-Lopez.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the conviction. They found the judge misinterpreted the ethics rule and wrongly kept Low out of the case, violating Gonzalez-Lopez’s Sixth Amendment right to choose his own lawyer. More importantly, they said this wasn’t a minor mistake you could just shrug off—it demanded a new trial, no questions asked. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a showdown over your right to pick your counsel.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling: Your Choice Matters
In a 5-4 decision on June 26, 2006, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, upheld the Eighth Circuit and delivered a powerful message: if a court wrongly denies you your chosen attorney, it’s a constitutional violation that doesn’t need proof of harm to overturn a conviction. Here’s how they broke it down:
1. The Sixth Amendment Guarantees Your Choice:
The Sixth Amendment says, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” The Court had long recognized this includes the right to hire the lawyer you want if you’re paying for it yourself (unlike cases where you get a public defender). The government admitted the judge’s rejection of Low was a mistake, meaning Gonzalez-Lopez’s right was violated.
2. No Need to Prove Prejudice:
The government argued Gonzalez-Lopez had to show his substitute lawyer, Dickhaus, was ineffective (under a standard from a case called Strickland v. Washington) or that Low would’ve gotten a better result. The Court said no. The right to your chosen counsel isn’t about whether the trial was “fair” overall—it’s about ensuring you get the specific lawyer you believe is best for you. Once that right is taken away wrongly, the violation is complete. You don’t have to prove the “what-ifs.”
3. A “Structural Error” Means Automatic Reversal:
The Court classified this as a “structural error”—a rare type of mistake that messes with the very framework of a trial, not just a hiccup in the process. Think of it like a house with a cracked foundation versus a leaky faucet. Structural errors—like denying you any lawyer at all or a public trial—are so fundamental that courts can’t just guess if they mattered. Because it’s impossible to know how Low might have changed the trial (different questions, strategies, or even a plea deal), the Court said harmless-error review (where you weigh if the mistake affected the outcome) doesn’t apply.
The fix? A new trial.
The majority emphasized this wasn’t about expanding the right beyond its limits. You can’t demand an unlicensed lawyer or one with a conflict of interest, and courts can still manage their dockets. But when a judge’s error—like misreading an ethics rule—strips you of your pick, the Constitution steps in.
The Dissent: A Call for Practicality
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, disagreed. They argued the Sixth Amendment focuses on the assistance you get, not the identity of your lawyer. To them, a violation should only count if it hurts the quality of your defense—like if your second-choice attorney was noticeably worse. They also thought courts should apply harmless-error review, not automatic reversal, to avoid tossing out convictions where the substitute lawyer did a stellar job. Alito worried about absurd outcomes: imagine a defendant getting a new trial even if their backup counsel was a superstar who nearly won the case!
Why This Matters for Your Georgia DUI Case
So, how does a 2006 drug case from Missouri connect to your DUI in Atlanta, Marietta, or anywhere in Georgia? As a DUI lawyer who’s handled thousands of cases across the state, I see three big takeaways:
1. Your Right to Choose Is Sacred:
Facing a DUI—whether it’s your first or a felony DUI with priors—you need an attorney you trust. Georgia courts, like federal ones, must respect your choice of private counsel. If a judge wrongly blocks your lawyer (say, over a baseless ethics claim or a procedural misstep), Gonzalez-Lopez says it’s not just a technicality—it’s a constitutional violation. I’ve seen clients come to me after feeling forced into a corner with the wrong representation. This case ensures you can fight for the advocate you want.
2. DUI Defense Is Personal:
The Supreme Court recognized that every lawyer brings something unique—strategy, style, relationships. In DUI cases, this is huge. Maybe I’d push for a suppression hearing on a bad traffic stop, negotiate a plea based on my rapport with prosecutors, or challenge a breath test’s reliability in a way another attorney wouldn’t. If a court denies you your chosen DUI lawyer, you lose that tailored defense. Gonzalez-Lopez protects your ability to pick someone who fits your case, not just any warm body with a law degree.
3. Structural Errors in Georgia Courts:
Georgia follows federal constitutional standards, so Gonzalez-Lopez applies here. If a judge in Fulton, Cobb, or DeKalb County wrongly disqualifies your DUI attorney, it could be grounds to overturn a conviction—no need to prove the substitute flopped. That said, Georgia courts have discretion to manage who practices before them, especially with out-of-state lawyers seeking pro hac vice admission. The key is the error: if it’s a mistake (not a legit reason like a conflict), you’ve got a shot at a redo.
Practical Implications for DUI Defendants
Let’s get real: this doesn’t mean you can demand anyone you want and win every time. Courts can still say no if your lawyer isn’t licensed in Georgia, has a conflict, or can’t make the trial date. And if you’re using a public defender, this right doesn’t apply—you don’t get to pick from the roster. But if you’ve hired me or another private DUI attorney and a judge wrongly kicks us off your case, Gonzalez-Lopez is your shield. It’s rare, but it happens—judges sometimes overstep on ethics calls or procedural rules, especially in high-stakes DUI cases with priors or accidents.
For example, imagine you hire me because of my track record with field sobriety test challenges, but a judge wrongly bars me over a misunderstanding about my contact with you. You’re stuck with someone less experienced, and you lose at trial. Under this ruling, we could appeal, argue the Sixth Amendment violation, and push for a new trial—without proving the other guy botched it. That’s a game-changer.
The Bigger Picture
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez isn’t just about one man’s marijuana case—it’s about your autonomy in the courtroom. DUI charges in Georgia can feel overwhelming, with the state throwing everything at you: breathalyzers, police testimony, mandatory penalties. Your lawyer is your voice, your shield, your strategist. The Supreme Court said loud and clear that when you’ve got the means and the will to choose that person, the government can’t snatch it away without a damn good reason—and if they do it wrong, they don’t get a free pass.
Contact George C. Creal, Jr. for Expert DUI Defense
If you’re facing a DUI in Georgia, don’t let your rights slip through the cracks. Whether it’s your first offense or a complex felony DUI, you deserve a lawyer who knows the ropes and fights for you. At George C. Creal, Jr., P.C., we’ve been defending Georgians for decades, from Atlanta to the smallest counties. Contact us today for a free consultation—because your choice of counsel isn’t just a preference, it’s a right.
George C. Creal, Jr. is a trial lawyer specializing in DUI and criminal defense in Georgia. This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Disclaimer
The information in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Please consult with an attorney to discuss your specific legal situation.