Rothgery v. GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS

Fifth Circuit

Rothgery v. GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS

537 F.3d 716, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16433, 2008 WL 2941962

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 1, 2008

Docket06-50267

StatusPublished

This text of 537 F.3d 716 (Rothgery v. GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rothgery v. GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS, 537 F.3d 716, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16433, 2008 WL 2941962 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court vacated this court’s judgment in this case and remanded the case to us for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. See Rothgery v. Gillespie County, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 2578, 171 L.Ed.2d 366 (2008), rev’g 491 F.3d 293 (5th Cir.2007). The Court decided what it termed a “threshold issue” in the case, holding that “a criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” Id. at —, 128 S.Ct. at 2592. The Court did not decide whether Rothgery’s Sixth Amendment right had been violated or, if so, whether Rothgery suffered cognizable harm. Proceeding from a different and incorrect premise on the threshold issue (as did this court), the district court had granted summary judgment in favor of Gillespie County. Under the circumstances, we think it advisable to vacate the district court’s judgment and to remand for further proceedings that, from the beginning, are consistent with the Court’s opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED. Costs shall be borne by Gillespie County.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court vacated this court’s judgment in this case and remanded the case to us for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. See Rothgery v. Gillespie County, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 2578, 171 L.Ed.2d 366 (2008), rev’g 491 F.3d 293 (5th Cir.2007). The Court decided what it termed a “threshold issue” in the case, holding that “a criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” Id. at —, 128 S.Ct. at 2592. The Court did not decide whether Rothgery’s Sixth Amendment right had been violated or, if so, whether Rothgery suffered cognizable harm. Proceeding from a different and incorrect premise on the threshold issue (as did this court), the district court had granted summary judgment in favor of Gillespie County. Under the circumstances, we think it advisable to vacate the district court’s judgment and to remand for further proceedings that, from the beginning, are consistent with the Court’s opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED. Costs shall be borne by Gillespie County.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 F.3d 716, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16433, 2008 WL 2941962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rothgery-v-gillespie-county-texas-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack