Hartmann et al. v. Chudzik et al.
- Case No.: 25-2762
- Jurisdiction: 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
- Brief Filed: December 12, 2025
Briefs
Prior Decision
decision below: H.C. v. Chudzik, 2023 WL 2745173 (E.D. Pa. March 31, 2025).
Argument(s)
The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment claim, ruling that while the right to counsel “attaches” at Pennsylvania’s preliminary arraignment (where bail is set), defendants are only entitled to appointed counsel at “critical stages” occurring after that proceeding. NACDL argues that Lancaster County’s preliminary arraignments, where bail is determined, are “critical stages” under the Sixth Amendment requiring appointed counsel. The district court erred by adopting a formalistic rule that categorically excludes the attachment proceeding itself from critical-stage protection. In reality, these arraignments are trial-like confrontations where judges evaluate a complex ten-factor framework while unrepresented defendants appear via video from jail, often cannot speak, and face advocacy from law enforcement. Especially in today’s plea-dominated system, the bail determination is outcome-determinative: pretrial detention leads to lost jobs, coerced guilty pleas, and diminished bargaining leverage—harms that later appointment of counsel cannot cure. The district court’s own due process analysis underscores the point: a proceeding cannot be constitutionally significant enough to implicate fundamental liberty interests yet simultaneously too trivial to require the assistance of counsel.
Author(s)
Daniella Gordon, Partner, McCarter & English, LLP, Third Circuit Vice Chair, NACDL Amicus Committee, Philadelphia, PA; Adeel Bashir, Eleventh Circuit Vice Chair, NACDL Amicus Committee, Tampa FL.
