United States v. Gaya, No. 09-4055 (7th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendants, convicted of cocaine offenses and sentenced to 20 and 30 years in prison, appealed procedural rulings. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court properly rejected a motion for a continuance so that the defendant could replace his attorney, made as trial was about to begin and after jury selection. The defendant had no new basis for dissatisfaction with his fourth attorney and could have made the motion at an earlier time. While one of the judge's statements, if taken literally, prohibited one of the attorneys from discussing the substance of the case with his client and an interruption in a defendant's right to communicate with counsel is a serious error, the statement was only meant to prohibit discussion of certain impeachment evidence and any error was "inconsequential."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.