Poll: Should the court be allowed to deny defense counsel?

Post Reply New Topic

Accused Scarborough robber, denied counsel, mounts low-key defense

Full story: http://www.pressherald.com/news/Opening_delayed_in_trial_of_defendant_ordered_to_represent_himself_.html

A competent defense attorney could probably dismantle the state's entire case over something like that. Well, on the robbery charge, anyway. This dude sounds like he's 2crazy4society.

Well, while one might say that a lawyer representing himself has a fool for a client, I think his 6th amendment protections ought to be guarded. The defendant does not seem like he can present a competent defense, so that would deny him a fair trial.

The way I see it he's still entitled to be represented.

Yeah but apparently, he threatened the lawyers that were appointed to him, and they bailed.--If this happens several times, and with this guy, not several times, but FIVE times , No court appointed lawyer will want to work with him, in which case he's on his own, irregardless of the judges actions.

Still though he would have garnered more respect from me by stating up front that he wanted to represent himself, rather than going the route that he chose.

FWIW, this court case is happening a few blocks from where I write this.

ALSO



Agreed on the last point, but on the first point 'Competent Defense Attorney' and 'Court Appointed Councel' are most often terms that are at odds with one another.

Last edited by Fogman on 29 Apr 2014, 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I guess he didn't want a public pretender.

and now if he screws up while defending him self t he court system is going to have to handle his appeal that will likely be just as clownish

This.

A judge could appoint someone as co-counsel, but instruct that lawyer to not contradict what the defendant wants to do...instead, just be available to offer guidance, but since the defendant could always try to appeal on the basis of ineffective legal counsel (and this often comes with a formal complaint to the state bar association), a problem defendant won't find anyone willing to take his/her case. Judges can't force a lawyer to take a case if there is good cause to reject the client. A defendant that won't cooperate with their lawyer is grounds to be dismissed as counsel.

Your right to legal counsel does not apply if you choose to represent yourself. This choice can be manifested by stating you want to represent yourself or by acting in a manner where your appointed counsel cannot mount a defense because you are working against them.

Keep in mind that none of this is the same as firing your defense counsel because they refuse to zealously defend your case. There are some things your defense counsel can not legally do (e.g., claim you are innocent if you admitted to your guilt), but if you want to plead "not guilty," it is your lawyer's job to zealously defend you against the state's claim and evidence against you. If they refuse to do that, then you are correct to fire them and demand another lawyer. If you want them to do something illegal (e.g., allow you to tell lies under oath in court), they have a right to request to be removed as your counsel.

It's that part in bold that I question. It's pretty apparent that Nisbet is a douchebag but that's beside the point.

This is apparently what's happening now, as the below is lifted from the actual article: