The latest edition of the Volokh Conspiracy analyzes a recent 12-4 en banc decision by the 6th Circuit decision in which the majority answers the question above “no” based on current precedent. However, a “concurrence dubitante” argues that this conflicts with The Founders’ intent when they drafted the 6th Amendment. Another concurring opinion calls on SCOTUS to change its precedent. A dissent argues that based on the facts of this case, the right to counsel attaches before indictment. This issue seems destined for SCOTUS. Why not preserve it in your client’s case?
p.s. Raise your hand if you know what “concurring dubitante” means.
Latin, ablative singular of “dubitans,” present participle of “dubitare,” to doubt