CLIENT-COUNSEL CONFLICT BETWEEN AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT AND THE COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY - A PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS

• NCJ Number: 65261
• Journal: University of San Francisco Law Review Volume: 13 Dated: (FALL 1978) Pages: 177-201
• Author(s): K TALLMAN
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 25 pages
• Corporate Author: University of San Francisco Law Review
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

EXISTING CASE LAW IN CALIFORNIA RELATING TO THE DILEMMA OF THE INDIGENT DEFENDANT WHO DISAGREES WITH THE COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY CONCERNING THE PRESENTATION OF HIS CASE IS DISCUSSED; POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS ARE SUGGESTED.

Abstract

UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, THE ATTORNEY CONTROLS THE CONDUCT OF A CRIMINAL CASE. THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT OF PERSONAL PARTICIPATION IS LIMITED TO CONTROL OVER THE WAIVER OF CERTAIN RIGHTS DEEMED FUNDAMENTAL. THIS BROAD GRANT OF AUTHORITY WORKS A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP FOR AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT BECAUSE THAT DEFENDANT MUST ACCEPT THE COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY WHO FREQUENTLY MUST DEAL WITH A HEAVY CASELOAD. DRUMGO V. SUPERIOR COURT (1973) ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO REPRESENT AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT RESTS SOLELY IN THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT. NEITHER STATUTORY NOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL REQUIRES THE APPOINTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT. GOOD CAUSE FOR DISCHARGE OF THE ATTORNEY IS FOUND ONLY IF THE DEFENDANT IS THE VICTIM OF INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION, AS DEFINED IN CASES DEALING WITH CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. AN INDIGENT MUST EITHER ACCEPT THE COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY AND THEREBY LOSE ALMOST ALL CONTROL OVER THE DEFENSE OR PROCEED PRO SE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF ANY LEGAL ADVICE. IN FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA (1975) THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE DEFENDANT AN INDEPENDENT RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION BUT DECLINED TO HOLD THAT THE RIGHT TO WAIVE COUNSEL IS INCLUDED. IN TOWNSEND V. SUPERIOR COURT (1975) THE COURT UPHELD THE AUTHORITY OF THE COUNSEL TO WAIVE A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT THE DEFENDANT'S PERSONAL CONSENT. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT CLIENT AND COUNSEL, ACTING JOINTLY, SHOULD MAKE DECISIONS INVOLVING SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, AND THAT, IF A CONFLICT ARISES, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD CONTROL THE FINAL DECISION UNDER WELL-DEFINED PROCEDURES. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE. (LWM)