Lucas Allen Newnam v. Pennsylvania

In every jurisdiction in the United States- both federal and state- there is a balancing test for deciding whether a court’s decision to deny a continuance request so that a criminal defendant may secure counsel of his choice violates that defendant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On one hand, a criminal defendant’s right to counsel of his choice is important only if exercising it is satisfactory according to a number of extraneous considerations, but on the other hand is so important that its denial in certain circumstances automatically requires a new trial. The dissonance in the perception of the right to counsel of one’s choice is the crux of the matter in this Petition. Newnam thus posits this question: Should this Court establish a bright-line test for determining whether a criminal defendant’s right to retained counsel of his choice is violated, wherein the only inquiry should be whether he or she has intentionally attempted to delay trial in bad faith?