skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 65261 Find in a Library
Title: CLIENT-COUNSEL CONFLICT BETWEEN AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT AND THE COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY - A PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS
Journal: UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO LAW REVIEW  Volume:13  Dated:(FALL 1978)  Pages:177-201
Author(s): K TALLMAN
Corporate Author: University of San Francisco Law Review
School of Law
Hendrick Hall
United States of America
Date Published: 1978
Page Count: 25
Sponsoring Agency: University of San Francisco Law Review
San Francisco, CA 94117
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)
Index Term(s): Attorney client relations; California; Court appointed counsel; Defender systems; Defense counsel; Indigents; Judicial decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=65261

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.