IS FORCING UNWANTED COUNSEL A VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH? FRITSCH CASE MAY DEFINE ‘EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE’ FOR A GENERATION

May 25, 2025

The April 2025 trial of Bernhard Fritsch in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on two counts of wire fraud may represent a critical point in defining the Sixth Amendment protections. Despite securing millions to retain private counsel, a federal judge compelled Fritsch to stand trial with court-appointed public defenders who acknowledged their unpreparedness. His trial ended in a split verdict – guilty on one count and acquittal on the other. He faces sentencing in October. An appeal is certain.

Defense by Default

The core issue in the Bernhard Fritsch trial occurred before the first witness was called.

The court assigned him a public defender because the indictment and pretrial defense cost had wiped out his life savings.

Bernhard Fritsch formally requested private counsel on the Thursday before trial, finally securing financial backing to retain an attorney.

He and his backers filed notarized documents pledging several million dollars for legal representation.

During a Friday hearing, the court denied his request for private counsel.

The Judge’s Clock Overrules the Constitution

Judge Dale Fischer cited timing concerns—suggesting it would take too long for private counsel to get on board – maybe a month. Maybe two. Fritsch was facing 20 years in prison.

It was a constitutional failure. A man with money was told to take the lawyer the state chose.

Fritsch addressed the court. He calmly explained his differences with the public defenders.

The judge turned to the defenders. In a rare and stark admission, the public defender said they were unprepared and unable to represent Fritsch at trial due to a fundamental breakdown in communication and a divergent theory of the case.

“Then I Go Pro Se”

The judge refused the continuance.

Fritsch responded: “Then I go pro se.”

The judge looked like she’d seen a ghost recite the Constitution.

For three hours, she tried to dissuade him from self-representation. But by the end of the hearing, Judge Fischer ruled Fritsch could proceed pro se.

Fritsch knew what he was doing. Not because he wanted to—but because he had to.

The Day the Defense Ceased to Exist

This decision of the judge marked a procedural and constitutional crisis in the defense of Fritsch. The public defenders stopped their trial preparation, and Fritsch began his.

It’s almost poetic—a man alone against the machine. No lawyer. No advocate. You’d think the prosecutors would love that.

But they wanted him boxed in, not wandering the courtroom, saying things that might make a jury listen. Or worse, giving an appellate judge a reason to overturn everything.

Prosecutors File to Reinstate Lawyers Who Quit

Over the weekend, the US Attorney for the Central District of California filed an emergency motion requesting reinstatement of the public defenders as Fritsch’s counsel.

They said to keep the lawyers on. Gag him with counsel he didn’t trust.

In a 12-page written submission, the public defenders replied that they could not represent Fritsch at trial due to, as they said before, a fundamental breakdown in communication and a divergent theory of the case.

Monday Morning: A Legal Farce Continues

On Monday at 8 a.m., the court convened.

The judge explored the possibility of allowing the public defenders to act as standby counsel should Fritsch proceed pro se. Two Federal Public Defender’s Office supervising attorneys confirmed that their policy prohibited partial representation.

Judge Fischer took the 12-page document into chambers, reviewed it, and returned with a ruling: the public defender would remain on the case. Fritsch was stuck with lawyers who already left him once.

On a Monday, the defense ceased to exist. They were counsel, or they were nothing. And nothing is what they became.

A Lawyer Arrives—And Is Turned Away

On Tuesday morning, during jury selection, attorney Kirk Schenck appeared to do what the Constitution promised: to represent another man in court. To represent Bernhard Fritsch.

Despite the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel of one’s choosing, the court denied the request, stating Fritsch had previously qualified for a public defender due to financial status.

Schenck responded that Fritsch now had the means to retain private counsel and was prepared to begin trial with only a short extension. He asked for a few days. Just a few.

Judge Fischer declined, citing the commencement of jury selection.

While she offered for Schenck to “join the team,” federal public defenders do not allow co-counsel or shadow attorneys. Schenck was effectively blocked.

And so he left. And the trial began.

A Joke in Real Time

You ever hear a joke in real time? Here’s one:

Guy walks into court and says, “Hey, I’m the lawyer the defendant chose. He’s got money now. Let me in.”

And the judge? She says, “Nah. He’s poor.”

Fritsch is there with a checkbook, and the judge tells the attorney, “You can join the public defenders.”

Except public defenders don’t take tagalongs.

“Except,” the man said, “he doesn’t want that lawyer. He wants me. And he can pay me now.”

“That’s unfortunate,” said the judge. “You’re too late.”

So what did she really say? “Get out.” But said it in robes. She shut the door. It was a door with no handle. And the man on trial remained alone, with a lawyer who was not his, locked into a defense he didn’t want, a defense that admitted they were unprepared.

And in that moment, the right to counsel dies quietly.

A Split Verdict That Makes No Sense

The trial commenced Wednesday. Nine days later, the jury convicted Fritsch of one wire fraud count and acquitted him of another nearly identical wire fraud count. The jury returned a verdict that made no sense: guilty and not guilty—on the same charge.

It tells you the jury was confused. It tells you the man had no real help. That’s a jury flying blind because the man on trial didn’t have anyone fighting for him.

That’s the Appeal. That’s All of It.