Wright v. Van Patten (2007)
- Docket
- 07-212
- Decided
- 2007-01-01
Summary
Question: Does a lawyer's representation of his client via speakerphone at a plea hearing for first-degree reckless homicide constitute a violation of that client's Sixth Amendment right to counsel? Conclusion: Unfortunately for Van Patten, the Court felt that there was no concrete prohibition of representation by speakerphone in the federal case law and therefore determined that "no clearly established law contrary to the state court's conclusion justifies collateral relief." Therefore, the Court reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision granting Van Patten relief and remanded the case to the lower courts for further proceedings. Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the otherwise unanimous decision, applying an "objectively unreasonable" standard to the Wisconsin trial court's determination and finding that it passed the test.