Ad
related to: motion for substitution of counsel
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
So the California courts allow a defendant represented by court-appointed counsel to directly communicate with the trial judge in the context of a Marsden motion, and only in such a context. A Marsden motion is a formal request made by a criminal defendant to the court. The court hears arguments on the motion from the defendant and the attorney ...
The trial court had denied the motion based on the trial judge's own observations of the proceedings and belief that the attorney was providing effective representation. Criminal defendants in the United States have the right to appointed counsel if they cannot afford to hire an attorney under the Sixth Amendment as interpreted by the United ...
The right of substitution, where applicable, may be exercised by criminal and juvenile defendants and all parties in a civil action.Substitution for cause can be for any bias a judge may have in the case, such as an association with a party (family, friendship or even stock ownership), having made vocal comments in the past on the topic at trial, etc.
A substitution of attorney is a legal document that may be created during a lawsuit if a party wishes to replace its attorney with another one. Both attorneys must sign the document (which is otherwise void ).
The absence of counsel is a recognized ground for continuance of a civil case. [98] [99] A court is not required to grant a postponement merely because a party's attorney is absent. [100] The court may require that the party seeking the continuance to show the reasons that the counsel is absent. [101] [102] [103] [104]
As stated in Brewer v.Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the right to counsel "means at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, 'whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. ' " [2] Brewer goes on to conclude that once adversarial proceedings have begun ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
Ad
related to: motion for substitution of counsel