# People v. Williams

> California Supreme Court · December 19, 2013 · 58 Cal. 4th 197

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2646881

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT LEE WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 19, 2013
- **Citations:** 58 Cal. 4th 197; 165 Cal. Rptr. 3d 717; 315 P.3d 1; 2013 Cal. LEXIS 10184; 2013 WL 6670699
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Liu, Baxter
- **Cited by:** 226 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2646881

## Opinion text

Filed 12/19/13

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, )
)
Plaintiff and Respondent, )
) S118629
v. )
)
ROBERT LEE WILLIAMS, JR., )
) Riverside County
Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. CR64075
____________________________________)

Defendant Robert Lee Williams, Jr., was convicted by a jury of two counts
of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187; all further statutory references are to the
Penal Code unless otherwise indicated), one count of attempted murder (§§ 187,
664), and one count of sexual penetration with a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)).
The jury found true the special circumstance allegations that defendant committed
multiple murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and committed the murders during the
commission of robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)),
and torture (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)). The jury also found true the allegations that
defendant personally used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8))
and inflicted great bodily injury (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)).
Following the penalty phase trial, the jury returned a verdict of death.
This appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); § 1239,
subd. (b).) For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment.

1
I. FACTS
A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution Case
On the night of July 15, 1995, defendant and two accomplices entered the
residence of Gary Williams and robbed and murdered him and his father, Roscoe
Williams. (Because the victims and defendant share the same surname, we refer
to the victims by their first names. The victims were not related to defendant.)
The men also sexually assaulted and attempted to murder Gary’s girlfriend, Conya
L., but she escaped through a bedroom window.
a. Robert Scott
Robert Scott testified that he and Gary, working together, had committed
over 20 armed robberies of credit unions during the early 1990s. On July 4, 1995,
Scott and Gary were sitting in Gary’s truck when defendant pulled up alongside in
his car. Defendant got out of his car, grabbed Gary, and pressed a black nine-
millimeter semiautomatic handgun against Gary’s neck, saying, “I know you
niggers out there getting licks and I want my share of the money.” Scott testified
that the term “lick” describes the proceeds gained from a completed robbery.
Defendant threatened that if Gary failed to meet his demand, defendant would kill
Gary and his family.
Gary and Scott decided to rob a credit union so they could pay defendant
and make money for themselves. On July 10, 1995, the men robbed an Orange
County credit union. Gary provided the guns and acted as the lookout while Scott
and another man, Curtis Jackson, entered the credit union and stole $56,000. Scott
and Jackson were captured following a high-speed police chase, but Gary fled in a
different car and escaped.

2
b. Conya L.
Conya L. testified that she and Gary had been romantically involved for
about a year, and that she was aware Gary made his living robbing credit unions.
On the evening of July 15, 1995, Conya L. and Gary went out to dinner. As they
drove back to Gary’s home in Moreno Valley, Gary informed Conya L. that he
needed to hurry back to the house because he had a meeting. Conya L. understood
that Gary was meeting Ronald Walker, who was known as “Boochie” or “Black,”
to buy a gun. As they turned onto Gary’s street, they drove past a burgundy
vehicle.
Upon arriving at Gary’s house, Conya L. observed that Gary’s father
Roscoe was waiting outside. The group entered the house, and Conya L. went
upstairs. From the master bedroom, she overheard Gary and Roscoe talking
downstairs. Roscoe said he was going to the store and asked Gary for money.
Gary gave Roscoe some money, and Roscoe left for the store.
From the bedroom window, Conya L. saw three men — defendant, Ronald
Walker, and a third man who was never identified or prosecuted (third perpetrator)
— leave a burgundy sedan and walk across the street toward the house. Defendant
was carrying a black case. As the men approached, Conya L. heard Gary say,
“Man, you didn’t see me and my girl? We passed you.” One of the men replied:
“Nah, nigger. I was rolling a joint.” When the three men and Gary went inside
the garage, Conya L. could hear “mumbled” talking.
Shortly thereafter, Walker appeared in the master bedroom and pointed a
gun at Conya L. Walker was wearing a pair of yellow dishwashing gloves but no
mask. He was soon joined by defendant, who was also wearing yellow
dishwashing gloves but no mask. Defendant ordered Conya L. to remove all of
her jewelry, which he then stuffed in his pocket. Because the suspects were
wearing gloves but not masks, Conya L. believed they intended to kill her.

3
Defendant asked Conya L., “bitch where’s the money?” When Conya L.
said she did not know, defendant directed Walker to tie her up. Walker bound
Conya L.’s hands behind her back with duct tape, and defendant used a lamp cord
to tie her ankles. Defendant threatened to rape and kill Conya L. if she failed to
disclose the location of the money. The third perpetrator, also wearing yellow
dishwashing gloves and no mask, then came upstairs and discussed stealing Gary’s
clothes and shoes. Defendant told him to go back downstairs to “stay on duty.”
Defendant then ransacked the master bedroom, stealing gold chains and jewelry.
Eventually Roscoe returned from the store and called for Gary to let him in.
Defendant instructed the third perpetrator to “snatch his ass in the house.” Conya
L. heard the front door open and defendant command, “get the fuck in here, old
man. Don’t you say a motherfucking word.” The door slammed closed.
Defendant ordered his cohorts to bring Gary and Roscoe upstairs. Gary and
Roscoe, with their hands and feet bound, were dragged upstairs and laid in the
hallway; Conya L. observed that Gary’s eye was bloody and swollen shut. Gary
disclosed that money was hidden in a cologne bag in the master bathroom.
Dissatisfied with the amount found in the bag, defendant said: “That ain’t all the
money . . . . Gary just hit two banks back to back.”
Defendant then forced Conya L. into a bathroom. He shut the door,
instructed Conya L. to remove her shorts, and pulled down her underwear. He
then removed one of the yellow rubber gloves and, using up to three fingers,
digitally penetrated Conya L.’s vagina several times. Defendant paused when
Gary called asking to speak with him. During the encounter, Gary referred to
defendant as “Rob.” Upon exiting the bathroom, defendant said to the others:
“Do his old man in front of him.”
The third perpetrator went downstairs and returned with brown plastic trash
bags. He drew one of the plastic bags tightly over Roscoe’s head. Conya L.

4
testified that at that juncture, Roscoe did not appear to have been gagged with duct
tape. Walker placed Gary in a choke hold and began choking him. Defendant
then grabbed Conya L. and placed her in a choke hold, rendering her unconscious.
Conya L. testified she felt like she was in a dream state as she lay face up on the
ground with defendant leaning over her, cutting her throat with a knife. Defendant
complained that the straight-edge knife was dull and ordered the third perpetrator
to get him a serrated one. Defendant then began cutting Conya L.’s throat with the
serrated knife. At that point, the phone rang. Conya L. saw beams from a car’s
headlights suggesting that a car was in the driveway.
All three men went downstairs, leaving Conya L. alone. Conya L. dialed
911, but upon hearing the men coming back upstairs, she left the 911 connection
on, climbed out the window, and jumped to the ground below. Naked from the
waist down, Conya L. ran from the house. After crying for help, she eventually
lay down in the street, and police found her a short time later.
c. Deputy David Glen Kirkendall
Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy David Glen Kirkendall testified that he
responded to the 911 call and arrived at Gary’s house just before 11:00 p.m. Upon
arriving, Deputy Kirkendall knocked on the front door. When no one responded,
he opened the garage and saw a pool of blood. He contacted police dispatch to
report his finding and was informed that the office had received numerous 911
calls regarding a woman in distress. Deputy Kirkendall hurried around the block
and saw Conya L. naked and “covered in blood.” When Conya L. pulled her hand
away from her throat, blood began pouring out.
d. Michelle Contreras
Gary’s across-the-street neighbor Michelle Contreras testified that on the
night in question she observed four cars rapidly accelerate away from Gary’s
house in the same direction of travel. One of the cars was Gary’s Chevy Cavalier,

5
and another was an El Camino that Gary had been storing for a friend. The
Cavalier and El Camino were recovered by police in the following days, and
yellow dishwashing gloves were found inside the El Camino.
e. Sheriff’s Investigator Brian Robert Fountain
Riverside County Sheriff’s Investigator Brian Robert Fountain testified that
law enforcement personnel found the bound bodies of Gary and Roscoe inside
Gary’s home. Both victims’ mouths were covered with duct tape. Two knives,
one serrated and one with a dull straight edge, were recovered near the bodies. An
empty black gun case was found in the street in front of the house. By stipulation,
the parties agreed that neither defendant’s nor Walker’s fingerprints or palm prints
were found in the house or on the gun case. Nor did any of the shoeprints located
in the house match any of the shoes subsequently confiscated from defendant or
Walker. Additionally, neither defendant’s nor Walker’s fingerprints were found
on the yellow rubber gloves that were discovered inside the El Camino.
f. Forensic Pathologist Joseph H. Choi, M.D.
Riverside County Forensic Pathologist Joseph H. Choi, M.D., conducted
the autopsies of Gary and Roscoe. Dr. Choi testified that neither victim’s body
exhibited defensive wounds. Gary’s neck exhibited five nonfatal superficial cuts
and a single stab wound that penetrated nearly two inches. Dr. Choi opined that
the cause of death was blood loss due to a partially severed jugular vein, which in
turn caused cardiovascular failure. Roscoe’s neck exhibited a deep slash wound
that had fully severed his jugular vein and larynx. Dr. Choi opined that the cause
of death was blood loss causing cardiovascular failure. Dr. Choi further opined
that the duct tape was applied to each victim’s mouth before he was fatally slashed
or stabbed.

6
g. Homicide Investigator Phil Ricciardi
Riverside County Sheriff’s Homicide Investigator Phil Ricciardi traveled to
the Riverside Community Hospital the day after the murders to interview Conya
L. Investigator Ricciardi first presented Conya L. with a picture of Walker, whom
Conya L. had previously identified to the police by way of his moniker. Conya L.
began crying and said “he was the one that did this to her.”
Investigator Ricciardi then read Conya L. a photographic lineup admonition
and presented her with a lineup containing a picture of defendant. Conya L.
pointed to defendant’s picture and said “he was the one that was cutting on her
throat.” At trial, Conya L. provided an in-court identification of defendant,
stating: “I’m a hundred percent positive . . . . There is no doubt in my mind . . . .
It was Rob. We were in the bathroom with the light on.”
In August 1995, Conya L. was visited by Riverside County Sheriff’s
Detective Gary Thompson. Detective Thompson presented Conya L. with a
photographic lineup for the purposes of identifying the third perpetrator. Conya L.
identified a man named Shawn Ford, but it was later discovered that Shawn Ford
had been incarcerated on July 15, 1995, and could not have been the third
perpetrator.
h. Detective Martin Wildeman
Las Vegas homicide detective Martin Wildeman testified that after the
murders, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department began conducting
surveillance at a motel where defendant was suspected to be staying. On July 26,
1995, defendant was seen leaving his motel room wearing a wig and hat. After
defendant returned to his room, law enforcement officers surrounded the motel
and took him into custody. Upon being arrested, defendant spontaneously
declared: “I guess I’m fucked because I’m going to jail behind two murders.”
Defendant refused to provide his name but said to another officer: “I’m hiding out

7
because they’re looking to pin a homicide on me.” A loaded gun was found in the
nightstand of the hotel room. At trial, Conya L. testified that she was “positive”
the gun was the same gun that Walker had pointed at her during the attack.
2. Defense Case
The defense called several witnesses to the stand. First, Sonya Jimmons
testified that she was working as a social worker at the Riverside Community
Hospital when Conya L. was admitted in July 1995. Jimmons testified that Conya
L. reported to her that she had been sodomized during her attacks and that her co-
victims had each been shot in the head by their attackers. Jimmons also stated that
Conya L. had a visitor when Jimmons was present and that Conya L. was laughing
and joking. She further testified that Conya L. had requested a pregnancy test.
Second, the defense called Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy Don Plata.
Deputy Plata testified that he had participated in the investigation of the murder
scene on July 15 and 16, 1995. He spoke with neighbor Michelle Contreras, who
informed him that she had seen four cars leaving Gary’s house.
Third, the defense recalled Conya L. and established that she had been
convicted of misdemeanor welfare fraud in 1991. Conya L. subsequently lied
about that conviction on two employment applications submitted in 1992 and
1996. Conya L. signed the 1992 application under penalty of perjury. In 1994,
Conya L. fraudulently used a Medi-Cal card.
The defense also attempted to impeach the credibility of Conya L. and
Scott through cross-examination. With respect to Conya L., for example, the
defense noted that two days after the murders Conya L. had said in a taped
interview that only two men had exited the car and approached the house, while at
trial she claimed there were three men. Conya L. had also said in a taped
interview three weeks after the murders that defendant was five feet seven inches

8
tall and weighed 170 pounds. Defendant was almost six feet tall and weighed 275
pounds at the time of the murders.
With respect to Scott, the defense suggested that Scott had attempted to
obtain a reduction of his prison sentence in exchange for testifying against
defendant. In a letter dated June 5, 2002, for example, Scott had written: “I was
willing to assist you [prosecutors] in the past, and I was under the impression your
office back then was going to assist me with the US Attorney and judge in the
[Lake Forest robbery] case.”
B. Penalty Phase
1. Evidence in Aggravation
The parties stipulated that defendant had been convicted of three prior
felonies. The first conviction was for possession of cocaine in 1986, and the
others were for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in 1992.
Roscoe’s brother, George Frank, testified that Roscoe was 55 years old
when he was murdered. Frank testified that Roscoe was caring, funny, morally
decent, and well-liked. Frank said that the family missed Roscoe terribly and that
Frank’s grandchildren were aware that Roscoe had been tortured and murdered.
On cross-examination, Frank acknowledged that Roscoe had struggled with drug
addiction and had many criminal convictions for narcotics and theft. Roscoe’s
sister, Erma Foster, testified that Roscoe had been a good brother and friend, and
“was never mean to anybody.”
2. Defense Mitigation Case
Abel Zaragoza testified that he had worked as a correctional group
supervising counselor at the Riverside County Sherriff’s Department in 1998.
Zaragoza testified that defendant had voluntarily joined and participated in an
anger management program while in prison. Daniel Johnson, a teacher who
offered general education and other courses to inmates on an independent study

9
basis, testified that defendant had earned his GED and a certificate for anger
management class completion.
Defendant’s 17-year-old daughter, Fantasia Williams, testified that she
wanted her father’s life to be spared. Defendant’s close friend, Victoria Windom,
testified that defendant had been like a son to her and had acted like a big brother
to Windom’s children. She said that defendant had always been respectful to her
and had influenced her children to stay in school. Donna Josey similarly testified
that she had known defendant since he was 13 years old and that he had been like
a son to her and had made friends with everyone. Defendant had been unable to
establish a bond with his father, however, because his father used marijuana and
crack cocaine. Josey further testified that defendant had worked at Burger King
while he was young and had been a good worker. Pearl Lee testified that she had
known defendant since he was young from the “projects” and that defendant had
been like a big brother to Lee’s daughters and had encouraged them to stay in
school.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Speedy Trial Claim
1. Procedural Background
Defendant argues that the nearly seven-year delay between his arrest and
the start of his trial violated his right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Addressing this claim requires a
somewhat lengthy recitation of the pretrial proceedings in this case.
Defendant was arrested on July 26, 1995, and arraigned on August 11,
1995, along with codefendant Ronald Walker. Defendant was represented at the
arraignment by Riverside County Deputy Public Defender Forest Wright. After
both defendants entered pleas of not guilty, the preliminary hearing was set for
September 7, 1995, before Judge Myers.

10
Following several requests for continuances by both defense counsel and
for which both defendants agreed to waive time, a new preliminary hearing date
was set for November 15, 1995. On November 9, 1995, Walker’s counsel sought
a 20-day continuance because he was in another trial. Wright, however, opposed
the continuance, explaining that his client “preferred to have the prelim as set.”
Finding good cause, the trial court continued the matter until December 1, 1995.
On November 29, 1995, Walker’s counsel requested another continuance
because of a scheduling conflict. Wright withdrew his opposition to the
continuance, stating that he had been ill and had been unable to meet with
defendant. Defendant agreed to waive time. Prosecutor John Ruiz objected,
stating that he was ready to proceed immediately. The trial court overruled the
prosecution’s objection, accepted defendants’ time waivers, and continued the
preliminary hearing until December 22, 1995.
During a status conference on December 14, 1995, Walker’s counsel
requested another continuance. Wright opposed the continuance on behalf of his
client. The prosecutor also objected to any further continuances. The trial court
denied the continuance request and pushed the preliminary hearing date up one
day to December 21, 1995.
On December 21, 1995, Walker’s attorney requested another continuance to
listen to tapes that had just been provided by the prosecution. Defendant initially
refused to waive time, stating: “I don’t want to waive no time. I want to come on
and do this.” He explained: “[T]his case is my life. And I have been in jail five
months. And it seems like nothing new has come up in five months.” The trial
court advised defendant to reconsider: “You can demand your right to go to
preliminary hearing. That’s fine with the Court. I’m just saying, also realize that
your attorneys have indicated they need to review some of this additional
information. If that’s fine with you and you don’t care, . . . because you have

11
knowingly indicated you want to go forth whether your attorneys are prepared or
not . . . it is going to preliminary hearing today.” Defendant then agreed to waive
time. The preliminary hearing was held on January 4, 1996, and both defendants
were held to answer. Arraignment was set for January 17, 1996.
On January 17, 1996, defendant requested a Marsden hearing to express his
dissatisfaction with assigned counsel. (See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d
118, 124 [holding that “a judge who denies a motion for substitution of attorneys
solely on the basis of his courtroom observations, despite a defendant’s offer to
relate specific instances of misconduct, abuses the exercise of his discretion to
determine the competency of the attorney”].) Defendant explained that he was
“not trying to be a problem” but that he felt his case was “getting nowhere.” He
explained: “My attorney had my case for six months, and it’s nothing — it’s like
we ain’t took one step.” He requested that he be appointed “an attorney that [was]
not so busy.” Wright agreed, saying: “He’s right. I am too busy. I would like to
get rid of a few cases.” Nonetheless, he assured the trial court he would be able to
provide a competent defense. The trial court denied defendant’s Marsden motion
and set the arraignment for the next day.
On January 18, 1996, both defendants were arraigned on the information,
and the district attorney gave notice that the death penalty would be sought.
Counsel for both defendants sought to continue the trial date beyond 60 days.
Walker agreed to waive time, but defendant refused. Walker’s counsel then
moved to sever the cases, stating: “We cannot be ready within 60 days, and if Mr.
Williams forces us to be going to trial within 60 days, I think my client would be
severely prejudiced . . . .” The severance motion was continued, and the
continuance motion was denied. The trial was set for March 11, 1996.
On February 2, 1996, Walker’s counsel filed a motion to sever his case
from defendant’s because he needed more time to prepare for trial and because

12
defendant was refusing to waive time. At the next hearing on February 23, 1996,
Wright joined in the motion to sever. The motion was denied. The trial court
denied defendant’s second Marsden motion on that same date.
On March 1, 1996, Wright requested a continuance of the trial date over
defendant’s objection. The court asked the defendant: “I take it you want to
continue to object to a trial date beyond that March 11 date; is that correct?”
Defendant replied: “Yes.” Despite defendant’s objection, the court found good
cause to continue the trial another 60 days to May 6, 1996. Shortly thereafter, the
case was reassigned to Judge McConaghy.
On May 3, 1996, counsel for both defendants moved to continue the trial
date. Wright indicated he would be unprepared to proceed with the trial as
scheduled. The prosecutor announced that the prosecution was ready for trial.
Defendant again expressed frustration with the lack of progress in his case and
said he had not spoken with his attorney a single time since the last hearing. The
trial court then held another Marsden hearing, at which point Wright
acknowledged that his being “in court every day, all day” was impeding his ability
to work on motions. He indicated, however, that he was proceeding “as diligently
as [he could] at this point, given the staff level that [he had] among qualified
persons.” The trial court denied defendant’s Marsden motion and continued the
trial to October 7, 1996. The trial court explained: “And I do this, that is, grant
the 1050 motion [for a continuance] reluctantly because I know [defendant] wants
a speedy trial. And, as I previously said, that the Court would like to get this
trial . . . starting Monday morning. I would be more than happy to do it, but we do
have conflicting constitutional issues involved . . . . [¶] And as I previously stated,
the constitutional right to have a competent attorney, in this Court’s opinion, far
outweighs the constitutional right to a speedy trial, which does not mean that we
totally ignore the right to a speedy trial.”

13
On August 30, 1996, the trial court considered defendant’s fourth Marsden
motion. Defendant again voiced his concern over his attorney’s lack of progress
in preparing for trial: “I would like to see if it’s possible to relieve my counsel and
represent myself in this case, because I don’t feel that I’m going to get a fair trial
. . . . [E]verything that [defense counsel] stipulated that he needed the extra 60
days for [at the last hearing], . . . still none of them was completed.” He then
clarified: “If I can have a new lawyer appointed, then I know there’s no way in
the world I would try to fight a case like this myself. But if I cannot have a new
lawyer appointed, that is my desire to represent myself.” Wright responded that
defendant had been “a little bit stingy with his information at times,” and that “it’s
not the case that nothing’s been done, because a lot has been done in this matter.”
He added that the investigation was ongoing, but noted that defendant’s “life has
been very different from a lot of persons’ background, and that’s created problems
in finding relatives and finding a lot of things that are necessary.” During further
closed hearings held on September 4, 1996, and September 11, 1996, defendant
withdrew his request to represent himself, and the trial court indicated that it “fully
intend[ed] to start this trial on October 7th.”
At a separate hearing on September 4, 1996, the prosecutor announced he
was ready for trial but “indicate[d] for the record that [he had] received no reports
from either of the defendants relating to reciprocal discovery.” On September 11,
1996, Wright said he did not anticipate being prepared for the trial and requested
second counsel or “Keenan counsel.” (See Keenan v. Superior Court (1982) 31
Cal.3d 424, 430 [trial court has discretion under statutes governing appointment of
counsel to appoint a second defense attorney to assist in defense of a capital case];
§ 987, subd. (d).) At the end of the hearing, the trial court asked defendant if he
would be willing to “waive [his] right to a speedy trial until October 7th, plus 60

14
days thereafter . . . ?” Defendant agreed. On September 20, 1996, the trial court
denied Wright’s request for Keenan counsel.
On September 23, 1996, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
in the Riverside County Superior Court asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.
The petition was denied.
On September 27, 1996, defense counsel for both defendants moved to
continue the trial until January 27, 1997. In a written declaration, Wright said he
had “not completed investigation of the ‘guilt/innocence phase’ of the case.” He
explained that his “on-going duties to represent other clients . . . necessitate[d]
[his] diligent attention to nine felony cases . . . . set for jury trial before the end of
November, 1996, and also to one other death penalty case.” During the hearing,
Wright said that he believed that a second attorney should be assigned to the case
and that he would be “in much better shape” if his office could make that
accommodation. Asked if he would be willing to waive time, defendant
responded: “I’ll go ahead and waive time. It won’t make any difference, but I’ll
go ahead and waive time.” He requested the trial court’s assurance, however, that
the new trial date would be fixed and firm: “I’d just like to know that after the
continuance, the January 27, ten days after that, after that is you going to continue
this again, or is this it?” The trial court responded that its “impression of what
we’re doing is that we’re picking a firm trial date with a time waiver until that
date, plus ten court days thereafter, with one little exception. If there’s some
reason why either of the defense attorneys need a . . . short continuance after that,
to provide all the rights you two fellows have a right to.”
On November 15, 1996, the trial court instructed Wright to provide the
prosecution with a list of all unresolved discovery issues by December 13, 1996.
After receiving the list, the prosecution indicated that it intended to contest several
of defendant’s discovery requests. The trial court scheduled a hearing on the

15
contemplated discovery motions for January 3, 1997. This date was later
continued to January 15, 1997.
On January 15, 1997, defendant was represented by Wright’s associate,
Deputy Public Defender Mara Feiger, who had agreed to serve as cocounsel.
Feiger, along with Walker’s attorney, requested a continuance of the January 27,
1997 trial date. The trial court granted the request, and trial was continued to
April 28, 1997. Feiger indicated that she expected the new trial date to be firm.
Asked to waive time, defendant said he did not believe it would assist him to
refuse to waive time because the matter would be continued over his objection:
“[T]he way it sounds, it don’t really make a difference if I agree or not. It seems
like everybody else agrees to it. I mean, me saying no ain’t helping me other
times. I don’t see how it’s going to help me now. . . . [¶] I mean, it don’t help me
none to sit here and say, no, I don’t waive my time, because the thing’s going to be
continued.” The trial court accepted defendant’s comments as a valid waiver and
continued the trial to April 28, 1997.
The trial court held various hearings on discovery-related matters in
February and March of 1997. On March 7, 1997, the prosecutor requested that the
court redact Conya L.’s address and phone number from certain documents before
they were turned over to the defense. The trial court ordered the parties to brief
the issue. On March 21, 1997, Feiger indicated that she anticipated requesting a
continuance because she wanted to bring a motion to compel numerous discovery
items.
On March 24, 1997, the trial court held a fifth Marsden motion hearing. At
the beginning of the hearing, defendant stated that he “[didn’t] know if this was
the proper way to address what I wanted to address,” and explained that he simply
wanted to speak to the court. He first attempted to apologize for his behavior, but
the trial court responded: “I’m not worried about your behavior.” Defendant then

16
stated: “I just wanted to say this. You have been basically familiar with my
attempts over and over trying to relieve Mr. Wright of counsel, and my not
waiving time, trying to hurry up and rush the trial. The reason that I was doing that
was because I felt that this was just going to get against — pushed to trial. And
the outcome is already set. . . . Now, since Ms. Feiger has been on my case, a lot
of the things that we got continuances for a year ago just now started getting done;
a lot of the investigation, a lot of — just basically preparing for my defense just
started getting done since she’s been my attorney. . . . Now, I see the work that my
attorney is doing, and I also know, just like I knew then, that I am facing death in
this case. So I just want, if possible, to give her whatever time she can get, or
what she would need.” When asked if he wanted to relieve his two lawyers,
defendant responded: “I don’t want to fire Ms. Feiger. If I can fire Mr. Wright, I
would love to. But I failed on, I think, four different times so I kind of gave up on
that.”
On March 31, 1997, Feiger filed a motion to compel the prosecution to
produce Conya L.’s address and requested a continuance. Also on that date, the
prosecution indicated that it was in possession of taped jailhouse conversations
between Walker and his girlfriend to which defendants were entitled. Defendant
waived time, and the trial court continued the trial to July 28, 1997.
On April 29, 1997, the prosecution indicated that it had turned over to the
defense the recorded conversation between Walker and his girlfriend, but that it
had not yet provided a transcript of the girlfriend’s statement to the police. Also
on that date, the parties revisited the question of whether the defense was entitled
to disclosure of Conya L.’s address and telephone number. After several more
hearings on this question, the trial court ruled on June 6, 1997, that it would not
order the requested information disclosed to the defense. Also on June 6, 1997,
counsel for both defendants moved to continue the trial in light of the ongoing

17
discovery disputes. Defendant waived time, and the trial date was continued to
October 10, 1997.
On August 7, 1997, the parties continued litigating various discovery
issues, including defense counsel’s request for the address of another witness. The
trial court ordered the prosecution to produce the address. The prosecution was
granted a two-week continuance to consider taking a writ to challenge the ruling.
When no writ was filed, the trial court granted the prosecution an additional 15
days to respond to the court-ordered disclosure.
On September 5, 1997, Walker’s counsel declared a conflict and sought to
be relieved. The motion was granted two weeks later, and an attorney from the
criminal defense panel (CDP) was appointed to represent Walker. The trial court
heard multiple defense discovery motions on September 29, 1997.
On October 7, 1997, Feiger said she probably would not be prepared to go
to trial for at least a year because she believed that the prosecution had failed to
adhere to its discovery obligations. Walker’s new counsel similarly indicated that
he would not be prepared for trial for at least six months and “probably closer to
. . . 12 than six.” The prosecution objected to any continuance and claimed that
the defense “was engaged in a fishing expedition.” The prosecution also argued
that the trial court had “an obligation to appoint counsel, where counsel on the
case can proceed in a fashion that would not disrupt the orderly administration of
justice,” and that it was not appropriate for the court to grant a year-long
continuance “just so CDP can keep it in-house.” The trial court acknowledged
that “discovery ha[d] not been smooth in this case in either direction” but said it
was not “pointing a finger” at either the defense or the prosecution. The trial court
ultimately granted the motion to continue and set a “firm” trial date for August 3,
1998. Defendant agreed to waive time.

18
On December 5, 1997, the prosecution requested an additional two weeks
to respond to a defense motion to compel disclosure of witness information. The
request was granted.
On January 23, 1998, Feiger said the prosecution still had not turned over
the discovery items the trial court had ordered produced on September 29, 1997.
The prosecution addressed each item in turn and agreed to provide the missing
items. The parties dispute whether or not the relevant materials had been provided
in a timely fashion.
On April 3, 1998, the public defender’s office declared a conflict with
defendant. A representative of the public defender’s office, Floyd Zagorsky, said
that while he was not at liberty to discuss the nature of the conflict, it was “a result
. . . of information that we received recently from the prosecution . . . we felt
should have been provided much earlier in the case.” In response, the trial court
relieved Wright and Feiger. Because of the conflict, defendant’s case was referred
to the criminal defense panel, and CDP attorney Jay Grossman sought and
received a 31-day continuance to arrange for another lawyer to represent
defendant. A month later, on May 4, 1998, Grossman was granted a 27-day
continuance as he continued to arrange for defendant’s representation.
On June 2, 1998, CDP attorney Grover Porter was appointed to represent
defendant. Porter requested that the trial be scheduled for February 23, 1999, so
that he could have adequate time to prepare. Defendant agreed to waive time.
On September 18, 1998, Porter asked to withdraw for health reasons. The
trial court granted the motion. On September 25, 1998, CDP attorney Douglas
Myers was appointed as counsel. On October 1, 1998, Myers appeared and
indicated that CDP attorney John Aquilina would be his cocounsel; the hearing
was continued until October 20, 1998 to determine how long defense counsel
would need to prepare for trial. On October 20, 1998, Myers was relieved, and

19
Aquilina said he needed an additional two weeks to evaluate the file in order to
determine when he could be ready for trial. On November 3, 1998, stating that he
had recently received “eight boxes of materials,” Aquilina requested that the trial
date be pushed back seven months. The trial court found good cause to continue
the trial to June 14, 1999.
On January 22, 1999, Aquilina indicated that another death penalty case
was “[o]ccupying a great deal of [his] time” but that he still anticipated being
ready for trial on June 14, 1999.
On April 23, 1999, Aquilina requested that the trial date be continued in
order for him to conduct additional investigation and because of an issue regarding
his investigator that he could only discuss in camera. The prosecutor opposed the
request, highlighting the age of the case and pointing out that defendant’s
investigator had been involved with the case “for years.” The trial court agreed
that defendant’s case was then “the oldest one in the courthouse” but agreed to
hold an in camera hearing to discuss Aquilina’s concerns.
During the in camera hearing, Aquilina informed the trial court that Grover
Porter had retained an investigator in June 1998 but that neither Porter nor
Aquilina had asked him to “conduct any investigation whatsoever.” About three
weeks prior to the in camera hearing, the investigator had informed Aquilina that
he needed to withdraw from the case to care for a terminally ill family member.
As to retaining a new investigator for the guilt case, Aquilina believed that one
would be available in June. A paralegal who had worked for Wright on the
penalty phase would also be available after her final exams were completed in
June. Summing up the situation, Aquilina said “no investigation [to] my
knowledge has been conducted since the public defender’s office was relieved in
April of ’98.”

20
At the hearing, Aquilina further commented: “I guess what distresses me
the most is that the public defender was appointed to Mr. Williams’ matter, it
appears, on August the 11th of 1995, was relieved in April of 1998, after declaring
a conflict of interest. And . . . it would appear all an attorney would have to do is
catch up to what has occurred. Quite candidly, I don’t see that even five percent
of the investigation necessary in the guilt phase of this case has been conducted.”
Aquilina noted that various witnesses had not been interviewed and that “trying to
locate witnesses, contact witnesses, interview witnesses” going forward would
“obviously not [be] as easy as it would have been back then.” Aquilina
apologized to the court that during his own representation of defendant since
October 1998, he had not moved the investigation forward because his
engagement on two other death penalty matters had prevented him from working
on defendant’s case. Aquilina said he didn’t think that “mentally, emotionally,
psychologically” he could handle “three capital cases in one year in a twelve-
month period.” Toward the end of the hearing, the court said to defendant: “I’ve
held a few Marsden motions with you and a few motions that weren’t truly
Marsden motions, but when we got to talk about what’s going on — and I think
it’s safe to say it’s been your concern all along that not enough has been done in
your case.”
On May 13, 1999, Aquilina requested that the trial date be continued. The
prosecutor opposed the request. Walker also opposed the continuance request.
Defendant waived time, and the trial court continued the trial until January 10,
2000. Four days later, on May 17, 1999, the trial court held a sixth Marsden
hearing. Defendant indicated that he had been unable to communicate with
Aquilina or his staff, and voiced his concern about Aquilina’s apparent failure to
make any progress on the case. Defendant also expressed his fear of going to trial
“with an attorney that only knows bits and pieces of the case.” Aquilina

21
acknowledged that defendant was “partly correct” in that he “[had] not been able
to give [defendant’s] case or [defendant] the attention he needs or deserves.”
Aquilina represented, however, that he would be prepared to start the trial in
January 2000. Defendant’s Marsden motion was denied, and on June 25, 1999,
CDP attorney Regina Filippone joined Aquilina as cocounsel for defendant.
On August 30, 1999, the trial court held a seventh Marsden hearing.
During the hearing, the presiding judge left the courtroom, and Aquilina disclosed
to a different judge that one of his other clients might have information that could
impeach Conya L.’s testimony in defendant’s case. In light of this potential
conflict of interest, defendant’s Marsden motion was granted. On September 2,
1999, CDP attorney David Gunn was appointed to represent defendant.
On October 1, 1999, Gunn said he needed several weeks to determine when
he could be ready for trial and also said he was in the process of securing
cocounsel. On October 22, 1999, Gunn indicated that the January 10, 2000 trial
date was unrealistic and that he was still in the process of securing cocounsel.
On November 22, 1999, Gunn explained to the trial court that he was still
attempting to secure cocounsel and would not be prepared for trial in January.
Noting Walker’s objection to any further continuances and “recognizing that this
is going to take two juries,” the prosecutor said he was “prepared to make a
motion to sever the two cases.” On December 17, 1999, the trial court granted the
severance motion, stating: “[I]n fact, I wish we would of thought of this at least a
couple of years ago. But we didn’t. Or at least we didn’t talk about it. It seems
like it might be the only way we’re ever going to get this case to trial is to sever it
and bite the bullet and actually do the case twice.” Also on that day, Gunn
announced that CDP attorney Bruce Cormicle would be serving as cocounsel.
On December 21, 1999, the trial court heard defendant’s eighth Marsden
motion. Defendant indicated that he wanted to bring to the trial court’s attention

22
the fact that he was having difficulty communicating with Gunn “before we get
too far down the line.” He also stated: “I’m tired. I want to go to trial. I’m tired
of sitting here. As you recall, two years ago, three years ago, I didn’t want to
waive no time. I wanted to go to trial then. I look at — like, you understand, my
life is on the line. If I was going to lose my life, let me lose it now and not sit in
here for four, five years, which looks like I ended up doing anyway. In the last
two years, nothing’s been done.” The trial court denied the motion.
Also on December 21, 1999, following the Marsden hearing, Gunn
informed the trial court that he had “about eight murder cases still set pending for
next year” and that he would therefore request a trial date of October 2, 2000. The
trial court granted the request.
On January 14, 2000, CDP attorney Cormicle officially appeared as
cocounsel for defendant. During an April 7, 2000 status conference, the trial court
inquired if the parties would be prepared to go forward with the October 2, 2000
trial date. Gunn said that the defense was “on track” but that he had “lost [his]
investigator due to family problems” and that he was just in the process of getting
new investigators “on board.” On May 12, 2000, Gunn indicated that his effort to
retain an investigator had been unsuccessful and that the problem would likely
affect his ability to be prepared for the upcoming trial date.
On June 9, 2000, the trial court held a ninth Marsden hearing. The trial
court concluded the hearing when defendant acknowledged that he did not want to
“fire[]” his attorney and simply wanted to apprise the court of the status of his
case. The same day, Gunn informed the trial court that he had just gotten funding
approved for an investigator and that before the funds were approved, he had
experienced “a period of time of about two months where we kind of lost our
ability to have investigative work done.”

23
On July 14, 2000, the trial court heard defendant’s tenth Marsden motion.
Defendant voiced his concerns as follows: “I would like counsel dismissed on my
case, due to the fact that from day one . . . to the present date, me and counsel does
not have no opportunity to sit down, and he actually know anything in this case.
Ask him about the case. Time and time again he told me that he would get caught
up with the case. That’s all been a lie. We referred to the Court four months ago
we didn’t have an investigator. We got an investigator three months ago. To the
present date, no investigator has been to talk or — the case been at a stand still for
10 months since Dave Gunn been on the case.” In response, Gunn acknowledged
that because of his problems finding an investigator and obtaining the requisite
funding, he had lost “three to four months, in terms of actual preparation of the
investigation.” He also acknowledged that the investigator had not met with
defendant since funding had been approved because of “vacations” and that the
investigator had been “working on a death penalty case in Rancho Cucamonga that
was just concluded.”
After hearing both sides, the trial court issued the following ruling: “I’m
going to deny the motion. . . . The bottom line, as I see it . . . is to have adequate
representation and be prepared for trial is a must. Whether or not that gets done
on a full-time basis working from sun up to sundown for a short period of time, or
anything in between that, and working an hour all day for 10 years I don’t think is
what’s important. [¶] What’s important is, is there adequate representation at the
time we get started at trial? And so I can’t even pretend that I know enough or
that I have the power or authority to tell Mr. Gunn you must work ex number of
hours this week on this case, because he has to manage his calendar. He’s got
other clients he is also working for. . . . [¶] I understand from your stand point, Mr.
Williams, that you’re the person that’s on the line here. You have been — this is
an old case in many respects. This case should have been to trial a good long time

24
ago. No one is going to quibble about that. If we would have bifurcated a good
long time ago, perhaps we would have had part of it to trial already and had been
done. Didn’t do so. That’s neither here nor there. That’s just a fact of life. [¶] I
see no reason why this one won’t get to trial in a timely manner now. And I’m
just — I don’t see any reason to grant the motion.”
On August 11, 2000, defendant moved to represent himself. (See Faretta v.
California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 819 (Faretta).) On August 16, 2000, the trial
court granted defendant’s Faretta motion, but directed Gunn to remain as “standby
counsel.” At defendant’s request, the trial court continued the trial date to
February 5, 2001.
At a hearing held on October 6, 2000, defendant voiced concerns regarding
Gunn’s role as standby counsel. Defendant further noted that he had filed a
malpractice suit against Gunn and said he did not “know if that would declare a
conflict or not.” Defendant also claimed that his court-appointed investigator
would not take his calls and failed to visit him in jail.
On October 13, 2000, the trial court considered defendant’s motion to
compel disclosure of various discovery items. The trial court indicated that it
would “handle that [motion] like I would any other discovery motion” and “order
that . . . the defendant and the district attorney [] get together and narrow the list
down to items that one side still thinks they have a right to.” The trial court also
informed defendant that it had no role to play in defendant’s request for funds.
On November 3, 2000, attorney John Davis filled in for prosecutor John
Ruiz and requested that the hearing on defendant’s discovery motions be
postponed until Ruiz’s return. Davis noted that Ruiz “would . . . be the person to
argue on [defendant’s] current motion, which appears to be a discovery motion for
six or eight . . . audio tapes and 911 logs . . . that normally we don’t object to, but
we probably have not provided to him previously. And they probably should have

25
been.” The trial court continued the hearing until November 9, 2000. On
November 9, 2000, Ruiz was “still ill,” and the trial court again postponed the
hearing.
On November 22, 2000, Davis informed the trial court that Ruiz would
likely “be ill for probably another three or four weeks.” Defendant stated for the
record: “[I]t seems like it’s getting impossible to get investigation and discovery
issues. And I just hope it don’t be difficult when that time come to go to the next
phase, as far as you understand having to fight for a continuance and not look like
it’s my reason why I need the continuance.” The hearing was continued until
January 4, 2001.
On January 4, 2001, Ruiz was still ill. The trial court expressed its concern
with Ruiz’s continued absence and suggested that Davis be prepared to take over
the case: “I’m a little bit concerned that we’re — Ruiz can try this case easily
enough because he tried [Walker’s] companion case earlier. . . . But we don’t
know what his health is. . . . I don’t want Davis to think I’m trying to run the
DA’s office, but Davis can try this case. . . . Davis is a good enough lawyer. He’s
got enough time that he can be ready. . . . [Ruiz is] the best candidate to try it
because he’s tried the other half of it, but I don’t want to get into a position where
[defendant] is caught between a rock and a hard spot because the DA’s office is
not ready.” The hearing was continued until January 12, 2001.
Ruiz returned for a hearing on January 12, 2001. During the hearing,
defendant claimed that the prosecutor had failed to provide him with discovery;
the prosecutor, in turn, responded that some of the requested items had been
turned over to the defense long before. The trial court ordered the parties back on
January 26, 2001, to consider a new trial date. The trial court also denied
defendant’s request that the trial court “appoint a second counsel.”

26
On January 26, 2001, defendant filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1. On the same day, the
prosecutor informed the court that his office had made copies of several of the
tapes defendant had requested but that “[defendant] doesn’t get these until they are
paid for.” Defendant responded that he had no investigator and that he didn’t
know if funding had been approved. On January 30, 2001, the trial court denied
defendant’s section 170.1 motion.
On January 31, 2001, defendant stated that he needed a six-month
continuance, explaining that he was “starting from scratch” and needed time to
prepare. The prosecutor objected to further delay, represented the prosecution was
ready to proceed to trial immediately, and complained that defendant was utilizing
his in propria persona status to cause delay. The trial court granted defendant a
two-month continuance until April 2, 2001.
On February 23, 2001, the prosecutor told the trial court that he had given
his investigator’s phone number to defendant. Defendant responded that the
investigator never picked up the phone to accept his collect calls. Also on
February 23, 2001, defendant filed another motion to disqualify the trial judge
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1. The motion was denied.
On March 7, 2001, defendant filed a motion to disqualify the prosecutor
pursuant to Penal Code section 1424, another motion to disqualify the trial judge
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, and a motion for a change of
venue pursuant to Penal Code section 1033. The motions were all denied. On
March 16, 2001, defendant waived time, and his motion for a continuance was
granted over the prosecutor’s objection. The trial was continued until June 4,
2001.
On March 20, 2001, defendant claimed that tests had been performed on his
clothing but that the results had never been produced; the trial court put the matter

27
over at the prosecutor’s request. On April 5, 2001, Ruiz turned over the clothing
and test results, which revealed that no blood had been found on the clothing.
Also on that date, defendant indicated that some of the tapes the prosecution had
provided contained no audio; Ruiz responded by promising to have copies made
and to turn them over to defendant once they were paid for. The trial court also
granted defendant’s request that his wife, Sharon Williams, be appointed as his
unpaid legal runner.
On April 17, 2001, the prosecutor told the court that defendant had been
provided additional copies of discovery that he did not believe to be in his files,
and said defendant had refused to reimburse the district attorney’s office for the
cost of photocopying the requested documents.
On May 1, 2001, standby counsel Gunn indicated that standby cocounsel
Cormicle would be unavailable in June and therefore requested that the trial date
be pushed back into July 2001. The court stated that the reason it “appointed
standby counsel [was] because [it believed] there [was] a better than even chance
[standby counsel would] end up trying the case” and that it would therefore be
prudent to allow standby counsel adequate time to prepare in case they were called
upon to take over the defense. Defendant said he did not oppose the request and
waived time. Over the prosecutor’s objection, the trial court continued the trial
until July 30, 2001. On May 18, 2001, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to
remove Gunn as standby counsel.
During a June 15, 2001, trial readiness conference, the trial court noted that
it had received a letter from defendant’s court-appointed investigator notifying the
court that the investigator was “no longer” on the case and asking for his
appointment to be terminated. In the letter, the investigator stated: “I find it
impossible to work with Mr. Williams.” The trial court granted the investigator’s
request and relieved him from the case.

28
On June 28, 2001, the trial court heard defendant’s motion to remove Gunn
as standby counsel. Citing the civil litigation he had filed against Gunn, defendant
argued that Gunn would not do his “best” because a guilty verdict would provide
Gunn with a defense to defendant’s pending civil suit. Gunn indicated that he was
“concerned enough” about the potential conflict that he had “called the State Bar,”
but stated that he still believed he could serve as standby counsel. The court
denied the motion.
Also on June 28, 2001, the prosecutor argued that defendant was engaged
in delay tactics. The prosecutor stated: “The court knows how long I have sat
back and waited. But . . . the letter by Mr. Evans [defendant’s investigator] — you
know, thank God a non lawyer addressed this court because this non lawyer told
you in no uncertain terms what the problem is. And that’s symbolic of what the
problem has continued to be. As he states in his letter, he asked to be relieved
from his position, appointed as his investigator, quote, ‘I find it impossible to work
with Mr. Williams.’ This letter lays out how Mr. Williams has done everything to
delay the proceedings in his dealings with the investigator. He takes a hostile
attitude with his own investigator and refuses to cooperate with him.”
The trial court noted at this point that defendant had chosen and hired this
investigator himself. The prosecutor agreed and added: “The record has shown
that this defendant has tried to fire every lawyer he has ever had.” When
defendant interrupted by saying, “Not Mara Feiger,” the prosecutor said that “the
only reason he did not try to fire Mara Feiger is because he saw in Mara Feiger a
lawyer who was going to tell him to violate Court orders that you just laid down in
the courtroom in that very session. . . . This is only going to delay the proceedings
and stretch it out. So the only attorney he never tried to fire was Ms. Feiger. And
she did him the favor, after representing him for a year and a half, of declaring a
conflict of interest, knowing that that was going to delay the trial another year,

29
playing right into the defendant’s hands. So no wonder he wants to put her up on
an alter [sic]. She did his bidding.
“What do we see here in the letter? We see a non lawyer addressing the
Court letting us know what’s going on with Mr. Williams.
“He tried to fire Forest Wright so many times I can’t count them. Then he
was given Grover Porter. Mr. Porter’s health did not allow him to take the
aggravation that we now see that Mr. Williams dishes out to the people that are
forced unfortunately to deal with him. He fired — or he Marsden’d John
Aquilina. [¶] Your honor has done so many Marsden motions on Mr. Gunn as
counsel, I think it says something. When you look back — this is a conservative
estimate — he’s made 25 Marsden motions. Now, at some point the world says,
‘Is it us or is it him?’ And it’s him.”
The prosecutor then urged the trial court to relieve defendant of his Faretta
status: “Your Honor has the basis today for relieving the defendant of his pro per
status by finding that the defendant has used and manipulated his pro per status to
delay these proceedings. Because if the Court enjoys discretion in anything, it is
to effect the orderly administration of justice in this courtroom.
“Your Honor, Mr. Williams — I want to add to that how long we’ve been
on this case. We arrested Mr. Williams two weeks after the murders on July 15th
of 1995. In two weeks, we’ll celebrate the sixth anniversary of the murders in this
case. And he has done everything he can to stretch it out, to delay it, to avoid this
day, in the hopes that Conya dies, that the other witnesses are unavailable. There
has been evidence of the defendant’s attempts to have Conya killed from years
ago.
“Your Honor, I think the appellate courts are going to say, ‘Mr. Williams,
six years is long enough.’ He is no closer to trial today than he was a year ago.
He doesn’t even have an investigator. No investigator will work with him. How

30
is he going to serve subpoenas? . . . No subpoenas served. I haven’t seen one
witness list from him. I’ve got no discovery from him. [¶] Judge, enough is
enough. Please grant the motion.”
When asked if he wished to be heard, defendant explained that he had had a
dispute with his investigator over funding, and that the reason he liked Mara
Feiger but not his other attorneys was that she was the only attorney who had
made progress on his case. He then stated: “I — at this point, I’m kind of, like,
fed up. Whatever y’all want to do. . . . This is your house. I’m burnt out. [¶] But
the — I will say this here. You give this man the case. The man don’t know
nothing about the case. . . . If I have the case, I’m not asking for no continuance.
I’m not asking for . . . you to put it off. As far as our trial date stands now, I am
ready to go to trial. . . . I know my case. I feel I know my case better than any
other attorney to have my case besides Mara Feiger. I feel the only reason I want
to fight my case — I know I’m in over my head, but the only reason I want to fight
my case, because I don’t want to go to trial with somebody like Mr. Gunn that
don’t have no knowledge of the case, and go through arguments like this. . . . So if
you want to take my pro per status, fine. This is your courtroom. Do what you
want to do. I don’t care. But don’t give it to this man. That’s the whole thing
I’ve been fighting. That is why I filed the motion to remove him as standby
counsel, because when he was counsel he ain’t doing nothing.”
When asked by the trial court if he had retained a new investigator,
defendant stated: “No. I do plan on, yes.” The trial court then made the
following findings: “that Mr. Williams has had — and I do not know the number
of Marsden motions. I can’t even count the number of lawyers that he’s had. And
I agree with him, the only one he liked was Ms. Feiger. And I think it was
probably for the reason, as Mr. Ruiz said, because she was — as a trial attorney,
she was a hand-holder for defendants. And that’s what Mr. Williams has been

31
looking for all along, somebody that will come through here anytime he wants to
be seen. [¶] I find that I agree with Mr. Williams, he’s in over his head. And that
all of these have been delay tactics. And I’m going to remove him from his pro
per status. And Mr. Gunn has become the lead attorney.”
On July 30, 2001, the date set for trial, Gunn represented to the trial court
that the defense required an additional 30-day continuance because he needed
more time to prepare for trial. When asked if he would agree to a continuance,
defendant stated: “I don’t agree to nothing.” Finding that there was a “15-court
day waiver beyond today’s date,” the trial court continued the matter to August 10,
2001. On August 10, 2001, the trial court found good cause to continue the matter
until August 20, 2001.
On August 20, 2001, Gunn declared a conflict because of the pending
lawsuit filed by defendant. Gunn also cited communication problems and
defendant’s failure to cooperate with defense preparations. The trial court said:
“[I]t’s another way of him delaying this trial by suing you. [¶] Next thing, Mr.
Cormicle is going to be sued for malpractice. Where does it end?” But Gunn
informed the court that “Mr. Williams does cooperate with Mr. Cormicle” and
“[w]ill communicate with him, cooperate in his defense,” and that the breakdown
appeared specific to the relationship between defendant and Gunn. The trial court
therefore relieved Gunn and appointed Cormicle as lead counsel. Finding good
cause, and without a time waiver from defendant, the trial court granted
Cormicle’s request to continue the trial date and set a trial readiness conference for
September 20, 2001. On September 20, 2001, Cormicle requested a continuance
because he was having difficulties securing investigative funds on behalf of the
defense. Defendant refused to waive time. Finding good cause for a continuance,
the trial court continued the trial to March 4, 2002.

32
During a January 23, 2002, trial readiness conference, Cormicle requested a
trial continuance because he had yet to receive some federal documents that he
had subpoenaed regarding bank robberies committed by victim Gary Williams.
Defendant waived time, and the trial was continued to April 8, 2002.
A hearing set for March 8, 2002, was postponed for a week at the request of
the prosecutor. On March 15, 2002, the prosecutor requested an additional two-
week continuance to give him “time to finish [another] jury trial.” The trial court
granted the request.
On March 29, 2002, the trial court heard and denied defendant’s eleventh
Marsden motion. The trial court told defendant that “[p]art of the reason this case
is old” is that “[w]hen the case gets ready for trial and gets near the time for trial,
we fire a lawyer or we represent ourselves . . . .” Later that same day, Cormicle
requested a continuance of the trial date. Cormicle said that the FBI had granted
him access to its files four days earlier regarding 15 separate bank robberies
committed by Gary and his associates, and that he needed more time to review
these materials. Defendant waived time, and the trial court continued the matter
until June 10, 2002.
On April 23, 2002, Cormicle represented to the trial court that he was “still
receiving additional reports, significant reports, that should have been turned over
seven years ago but were not.” Specifically, Cormicle indicated that he had only
recently received “a four-page report from the FBI that was in the possession of
the district attorney pertaining to Robert Scott.” According to Cormicle, the report
contained statements that were inconsistent with Scott’s prior statements and
identified witnesses that had not previously been identified. In response, the
prosecutor claimed that “[t]he problem with why that was not turned over earlier is
because of the revolving door of defense attorneys” who failed to “follow
through” with discovery. He also claimed that the new material was

33
“independently obtainable by defense counsel.” Cormicle responded that the
prosecution had an obligation to turn over the material under Brady v. Maryland
(1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady) and that “there had been a demand for reports from
my client during the time that he was pro per.”
During an ex parte hearing held on April 25, 2002, Cormicle represented
that he had “basically started from scratch” because “nothing had been done for
the past six years . . . .” He also said he had recently come across a one-page
document titled “Gary and 100 bandits” that “was an outline of . . . 15, 16, or 17
bank robberies that Gary Williams was believed to have orchestrated and
organized.” The defense had only recently received about “700 pages” of
information regarding these prior bank robberies and the associates of Gary
Williams who may have had reason to rob or kill him. Cormicle also clarified that
the four-page document he had referred to two days earlier was a “proffered
statement” from Robert Scott “where he’s presumably looking to cut a deal with
the US Attorney.”
On May 1, 2002, Cormicle requested that trial be continued until August
2002 in order to give him time to explore issues regarding third-party liability and
complete his investigation. At the request of the prosecutor, Conya L. addressed
the trial court and explained that she felt threatened and wanted to “get this out of
the way.” The prosecutor urged the court to reject any further requests for delay
and argued that defendant or his counsel had successfully manipulated the pretrial
process over the past six years. The prosecutor asked the court to consider “the
length to which Mr. Williams will go to thwart your will and break your will, that
this case ever get to trial.” The court responded: “Mr. Ruiz, he’s not going to
break my will,” and “I don’t like lawyers insinuating that any defendant’s going to
control what I do.” When the prosecutor pushed back and suggested that the court
had not sufficiently challenged the reasons given by defense counsel for seeking

34
continuances over the past six years, the trial court said: “You’re wrong. I’m
telling you that you’re wrong so move on to something else.” Noting that the
pretrial history of the case read “like a horror story as far as delays,” the trial court
then continued the trial date to July 1, 2002, over the prosecutor’s objection.
Defendant agreed to waive time.
The trial court heard and denied defendant’s twelfth Marsden motion on
June 7, 2002. Jury selection began on July 1, 2002.
2. Analysis
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that
“[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . .
trial.” “[T]he right to a speedy trial is ‘fundamental’ and is imposed by the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the States.” (Barker v. Wingo
(1972) 407 U.S. 514, 515 (Barker), quoting Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) 386
U.S. 213, 223.) The speedy trial guarantee “is an important safeguard to prevent
undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, to minimize anxiety and concern
accompanying public accusation and to limit the possibilities that long delay will
impair the ability of an accused to defend himself.” (United States v. Ewell (1966)
383 U.S. 116, 120.)
In Barker, the high court explained that the Sixth Amendment right to a
speedy trial “is generically different from any of the other rights enshrined in the
Constitution for the protection of the accused” in several important ways. (Barker,
supra, 407 U.S. at p. 519.) First, “there is a societal interest in providing a speedy
trial which exists separate from, and at times in opposition to, the interests of the
accused.” (Ibid.) Lengthy pretrial incarceration “contributes to the overcrowding
and generally deplorable state” of local jails, “ ‘has a destructive effect on human
character,’ ” and imposes significant “cost[s]” on society in the form of
maintenance expenses and lost wages. (Id. at pp. 520–521.) Second, unlike other

35
constitutional rights afforded the accused, deprivation of the right to a speedy trial
“may work to the accused’s advantage,” as “[d]elay is not an uncommon defense
tactic.” (Id. at p. 521.) “Thus, unlike the right to counsel or the right to be free
from compelled self-incrimination, deprivation of the right to speedy trial does not
per se prejudice the accused’s ability to defend himself.” (Ibid.) Third, “the right
to speedy trial is a more vague concept than other procedural rights” in that it is
impossible to “definitively say how long is too long in a system where justice is
supposed to be swift but deliberate.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, “any inquiry into a
speedy trial claim necessitates a functional analysis of the right in the particular
context of the case . . . .” (Id. at p. 522.) Finally, “[t]he amorphous quality of the
right also leads to the unsatisfactorily severe remedy of dismissal of the indictment
when the right has been deprived. . . . Such a remedy is more serious than an
exclusionary rule or a reversal for a new trial, but it is the only possible remedy.”
(Ibid., fn. omitted.)
Because “[t]he speedy-trial right is ‘amorphous,’ ‘slippery,’ and
‘necessarily relative,’ ” the high court in Barker “refused to ‘quantif[y]’ the right
‘into a specified number of days or months’ or to hinge the right on a defendant’s
explicit request for a speedy trial.” (Vermont v. Brillon (2009) 556 U.S. 81, 89–90
(Brillon), quoting Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at p. 522.) Rather, to determine
whether a speedy trial violation has occurred, Barker established a balancing test
consisting of “four separate enquiries: whether delay before trial was
uncommonly long, whether the government or the criminal defendant is more to
blame for that delay, whether, in due course, the defendant asserted his right to a
speedy trial, and whether he suffered prejudice as the delay’s result.” (Doggett v.
United States (1992) 505 U.S. 647, 651 (Doggett).) None of these four factors is
“either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the
right of speedy trial. Rather, they are related factors and must be considered

36
together with such other circumstances as may be relevant. In sum, these factors
have no talismanic qualities; courts must still engage in a difficult and sensitive
balancing process.” (Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at p. 533.) The burden of
demonstrating a speedy trial violation under Barker’s multifactor test lies with the
defendant. (See id. at p. 532.)
Based on the overall balance of factors in the present case, we conclude that
defendant’s speedy trial claim fails. In reaching that conclusion, we address the
four Barker factors in the following order: length of the delay, prejudice,
defendant’s assertion of the speedy trial right, and who is to blame for the delay.
a. Length of the delay
The first Barker factor, the length of the delay, encompasses a “double
enquiry.” (Doggett, supra, 505 U.S. at p. 651.) “Simply to trigger a speedy trial
analysis, an accused must allege that the interval between accusation and trial has
crossed the threshold dividing ordinary from ‘presumptively prejudicial’ delay,
[Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at pp. 530–531], since, by definition, he cannot complain
that the government has denied him a ‘speedy’ trial if it has, in fact, prosecuted his
case with customary promptness. If the accused makes this showing, the court
must then consider, as one factor among several, the extent to which the delay
stretches beyond the bare minimum needed to trigger judicial examination of the
claim. [Citation.] This latter enquiry is significant to the speedy trial analysis
because . . . the presumption that pretrial delay has prejudiced the accused
intensifies over time.” (Id. at pp. 651–652; see id. at p. 652, fn. 1 [“We note that,
as the term is used in this threshold context, ‘presumptive prejudice’ does not
necessarily indicate a statistical probability of prejudice; it simply marks the point
at which courts deem the delay unreasonable enough to trigger the Barker
enquiry.”].)

37
In this case, defendant was arrested on July 26, 1995, and brought to trial
on July 1, 2002. (See United States v. Marion (1971) 404 U.S. 307, 325 [Sixth
Amendment speedy trial right attaches when the defendant is “accused,” i.e., when
he is “arrested, charged, or otherwise subjected to formal restraint prior to
indictment”].) This delay of nearly seven years clearly qualifies as
“ ‘presumptively prejudicial’ ” within the meaning of Barker. (See Doggett,
supra, 505 U.S. at p. 652, fn. 1 [noting that “the lower courts have generally found
postaccusation delay ‘presumptively prejudicial’ at least as it approaches one
year”]; see also United States v. Loud Hawk (1986) 474 U.S. 302, 304 (Loud
Hawk) [90-month delay]; Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 239, 252
[four-and-a-half-year delay].)
In a complex case, delay will weigh less heavily against the state because
the significance of the delay “is necessarily dependent upon the peculiar
circumstances of the case” and because “the delay that can be tolerated for an
ordinary street crime is considerably less than for a serious . . . charge.” (Barker,
supra, 407 U.S. at pp. 530–531.) In the present case, the charges were serious and
complex. Defendant was charged, along with a codefendant, with a double
homicide and attempted murder for which the prosecution sought the death
penalty. This case certainly differs from the routine prosecution of an ordinary
street crime. However, in denying defendant’s request for Keenan counsel, the
trial court opined that the case was “not necessarily a more complicated case than
any other [capital] case.” After taking into account “the seriousness of the
offenses,” the “nature of the offenses themselves,” and “the number of motions
that allegedly need[ed] to be filed,” the trial court concluded that second counsel
was unnecessary to assist in what it believed to be a relatively straightforward
death penalty case. Once trial finally began, it concluded within seven weeks.
Moreover, even considering the gravity of the charges, a delay of seven years is

38
“extraordinary.” (Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at p. 533 [“It is clear that the length of
delay between arrest and trial –– well over five years –– was extraordinary.”]; see
Doggett, supra, 505 U.S. at p. 652 [noting “the extraordinary 8 1/2-year lag
between [defendant’s] indictment and arrest”].) At oral argument, neither the
Attorney General nor counsel for defendant was aware of any other capital case in
California with a pretrial delay longer than what occurred here. In sum, the delay
in this case “clearly suffices to trigger the speedy trial enquiry.” (Ibid.) We
address further below the significance of the extent to which the delay exceeded
the minimum needed to trigger the Barker inquiry.
b. Whether defendant suffered prejudice as a result of the delay
Whether defendant suffered prejudice as a result of the delay must be
assessed in light of the interests the speedy trial right was designed to protect: “(i)
to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern
of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired.”
(Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at p. 532.)
We have no difficulty concluding, even in light the complexity of the case
and the need for adequate preparation, that being jailed without a trial for seven
years is “oppressive.” (See Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at pp. 532–533 [“The time
spent in jail is simply dead time.”].) Further, although being charged with a
capital crime is bound to cause anxiety and concern under any circumstances, here
defendant expressed anxiety and concern about the pretrial delay on the record.
There can be no question that the length of pretrial incarceration in this case is a
“serious” restraint on liberty with “detrimental impact[s] on the individual.” (Id.
at p. 532; see United States v. Marion, supra, 404 U.S. at p. 320 [arrest and
pretrial incarceration “seriously interfere with the defendant’s liberty” and “may
disrupt his employment, drain his financial resources, curtail his associations,

39
subject him to public obloquy, and create anxiety in him, his family and his
friends”].)
As to whether defendant suffered the “most serious” type of prejudice, the
inability to adequately prepare his defense (Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at p. 532),
defendant contends that the delay led to “two specific and concrete losses over and
above the generalized problems inevitable in such a lengthy pretrial delay.” First,
defendant argues that “any meaningful investigation into the third parties
motivated to kill Gary Williams was dealt a severe if not fatal blow by the
significant time delays.” He says, “the number, identities, and motivations of
those individuals who wanted to kill or harm Gary Williams came to light very
late in the arduous pretrial process,” with “[t]he first inkling” of Gary’s past
surfacing only in March 1997 and the full extent of his criminal activities revealed
only in January 2002. According to defendant, had “trial occurred in 1997 or
1998, instead of 2002, . . . the identity and whereabouts of those third parties
would much more likely have been ascertained.”
Second, defendant argues that the delay allowed the state to “stabilize the
testimony of [Conya L.].” He observes that Conya L. offered varying accounts in
the weeks and months following the murders, but that she “testified with unfailing
certitude” at the trial seven years later. Defendant argues that “[t]he passage of so
much time inevitably impacts a person’s recall and perception, such that they can
crystallize and bring forth certitude from initial uncertainty and equivocation.”
The record indicates that Conya L.’s testimony at trial differed in some respects
from the account she had provided seven years earlier, a point explored during
cross-examination by the defense. (Ante, at pp. 8–9; post, at pp. 76–77, 83–84.)
The Attorney General contends that defendant’s claims of prejudice are
vague and speculative. We agree. Defendant has not specifically identified what
witnesses might have eluded the defense or what testimony might have been lost

40
or distorted as a result of the delay in this case. Defendant has not made any
particularized showing of evidentiary prejudice.
The high court has said, however, that “consideration of prejudice is not
limited to the specifically demonstrable, and . . . affirmative proof of particularized
prejudice is not essential to every speedy trial claim.” (Doggett, supra, 505 U.S.
at p. 655.) “Barker explicitly recognized that impairment of one’s defense is the
most difficult form of speedy trial prejudice to prove because time’s erosion of
exculpatory evidence and testimony ‘can rarely be shown,’ ” and “we generally
have to recognize that excessive delay presumptively compromises the reliability
of a trial in ways that neither party can prove or, for that matter, identify.” (Id. at
p. 655.)
In explaining “the role that presumptive prejudice should play” in the
speedy trial analysis, the high court in Doggett said that “its importance increases
with the length of delay.” (Doggett, supra, 505 U.S. at p. 656.) The court then
discussed how the importance of presumptive prejudice varies with the reason for
the delay. On one hand, delay occasioned by diligent prosecution would be
“wholly justifiable” and would not support a defendant’s speedy trial claim absent
a showing of “specific prejudice to his defense.” (Ibid.) On the other hand,
“official bad faith in causing delay will be weighed heavily against the
government” and, in a case of extraordinarily lengthy delay, “would present an
overwhelming case for dismissal” even without any specific showing of prejudice.
(Ibid.) Doggett went on to explain: “Between diligent prosecution and bad-faith
delay, official negligence in bringing an accused to trial occupies the middle
ground. While not compelling relief in every case where bad-faith delay would
make relief virtually automatic, neither is negligence automatically tolerable
simply because the accused cannot demonstrate exactly how it has prejudiced
him. . . . [¶] . . . Although negligence is obviously to be weighed more lightly than

41
a deliberate intent to harm the accused’s defense, it still falls on the wrong side of
the divide between acceptable and unacceptable reasons for delaying a criminal
prosecution once it has begun. And such is the nature of the prejudice presumed
that the weight we assign to official negligence compounds over time as the
presumption of evidentiary prejudice grows. Thus, our toleration of such
negligence varies inversely with its protractedness, [citation], and its consequent
threat to the fairness of the accused’s trial.” (Id. at pp. 656–657.)
In the present case, there is no allegation of official bad faith causing the
delay, but we may assume that the delay here, as in Doggett, was sufficiently
protracted that the presumption of prejudice would weigh heavily in defendant’s
favor if the cause of the delay was official negligence. We examine the all-
important question of who is to blame for the delay further below.
c. Defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial
Barker rejected “the rule that a defendant who fails to demand a speedy
trial forever waives his right.” (Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at p. 528.) But the high
court cautioned that its rejection of the demand- or waiver-rule did not mean that a
defendant has no responsibility to assert his right. (Ibid.) Rather, “the defendant’s
assertion of or failure to assert his right to a speedy trial is one of the factors to be
considered in an inquiry into the deprivation of the right.” (Ibid.) “Whether and
how a defendant asserts his right is closely related to the . . . [remaining Barker
factors]. The strength of his efforts will be affected by the length of the delay, to
some extent by the reason for the delay, and most particularly by the personal
prejudice, which is not always readily identifiable, that he experiences. The more
serious the deprivation, the more likely a defendant is to complain. The
defendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right, then, is entitled to strong evidentiary
weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right.”
(Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at pp. 531–532.)

42
In applying this factor, one court has explained: “The issue is not simply
the number of times the accused acquiesced or objected; rather, the focus is on the
surrounding circumstances, such as the timeliness, persistence, and sincerity of the
objections, the reasons for the acquiescence, whether the accused was represented
by counsel, the accused’s pretrial conduct (as that conduct bears on the speedy
trial right), and so forth. [Citation.] The totality of the accused’s responses to the
delay is indicative of whether he or she actually wanted a speedy trial.” (State v.
Couture (Mont. 2010) 240 P.3d 987, 1003 (Couture).)
Defendant says he repeatedly asserted the substance of his right to a speedy
trial throughout much of the lengthy pretrial period. He emphasizes that the court
itself recognized on several occasions that it was granting delays reluctantly
“because I know [defendant] wants a speedy trial.” Although defendant
acknowledges that he waived time on several occasions, he says he did so because
he had no alternative in light of his attorneys’ lack of preparation and the
prosecution’s delays in providing discovery. In response, the Attorney General
contends that defendant consented to 17 out of 19 continuances granted by the trial
court and that his requests for a speedy trial were, in reality, repeated efforts to fire
his various court-appointed attorneys. Further, the Attorney General describes
defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial as “sporadic,” noting that he did
not protest delays during the time he represented himself or when he was
represented by Mara Feiger, the only attorney who performed to defendant’s
satisfaction.
The Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant both a speedy trial and
effective representation, and it puts the burden of securing both guarantees on the
state. (See Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at p. 527 [“A defendant has no duty to bring
himself to trial; the State has that duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial
is consistent with due process.”], italics added, fn. omitted; cf. People v. Johnson

43
(1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 571 [construing state statutory speedy trial right to mean an
indigent defendant need not “choose between the right to a speedy trial and the
right to representation by competent counsel”].) At the same time, we have said
that a defendant may not, “ ‘by the simple expedient of refusing to cooperate with
his attorney, force a trial court to choose between [the right to a speedy trial and
effective representation], in the hope that a reviewing court will find that the trial
court has made the wrong choice.’ ” (People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 556
(Lomax).) In the present case, we need not decide whether defendant’s pretrial
conduct on balance reflected a sincere desire to have a speedy trial or a calculated
scheme of delay and refusal to cooperate with counsel. For even assuming this
Barker factor weighs in favor of defendant, his speedy trial claim cannot succeed
on the record before us for reasons explained below.
d. Who is to blame for the delay
In the Barker analysis, the reason for the delay is the “flag all litigants seek
to capture.” (Loud Hawk, supra, 474 U.S. at p. 315.) “A deliberate attempt to
delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against
the government. A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts
should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the
ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government
rather than with the defendant. Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing witness,
should serve to justify appropriate delay.” (Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at p. 531,
fn. omitted.) In analyzing this factor, we discuss the conduct of the prosecution,
the defense, and the trial court in turn.
(1)
In examining the record, we are able to isolate only a handful of delays for
which the prosecution appears directly responsible. The prosecutor requested and
received continuances totaling about two and a half months — first to consider

44
taking a writ in response to a ruling by the trial court, and later because of his busy
trial schedule. The prosecutor was also absent for about three months due to
illness, which constitutes a “strong excuse” for delay. (Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at
p. 534.)
Defendant argues that some of the delay in this case is attributable to
discovery obstructions by the prosecution. He contends, for example, that the
prosecutor “resist[ed] . . . providing [Conya L.’s] contact information” and failed
to turn over “FBI reports concerning Gary Williams and his bank and credit union
robbery associates.” But as explained further below (post, at pp. 68–85, 92–95),
the prosecution was not obligated to disclose Conya L.’s address, had no duty to
turn over the FBI reports, and did not otherwise fail to adhere to its discovery
obligations with respect to these materials. Although defendant cites additional
examples of the prosecution’s alleged delays in producing discovery, the record on
appeal does not enable us to conclude that responsibility for the discovery disputes
should be attributed to the prosecution.
On the whole, the record shows that the prosecution, far from trying to
delay the trial, sought to try this case in a timely manner. At numerous points
from the early to the late stages of the pretrial period, the prosecution objected to
continuances of the trial date. When defendant appeared to be “in over his head”
during the period of his self-representation, the prosecution forcefully objected to
the delay and urged the trial court to revoke defendant’s Faretta status. Similarly,
after the sixth year of delay, the prosecutor arranged for Conya L. to address the
court and implored the trial judge to deny any further requests for delay. Neither
the prosecutor’s illness, the back-and-forth of discovery disputes, nor any of the
other minor delays discussed above detracts from the overall conclusion that the
state prosecuted this case diligently and was prepared to afford defendant a speedy
trial.

45
(2)
It is readily apparent from the record that defendant was responsible for the
delay arising from three discrete periods of the pretrial process. First, he
acquiesced in continuances during a 13-month period from February 1997 to
March 1998 when he appeared satisfied with Mara Feiger’s efforts to move his
case forward. Second, he consistently waived time during the final six months of
the pretrial proceedings as Bruce Cormicle prepared for trial. These two periods
of delay are properly charged to defendant.
Third, defendant was responsible for the delay that occurred during and
after his attempt at self-representation, a period which marks a distinct turning
point in the pretrial proceedings. Before defendant assumed Faretta status, there
is no indication that the trial court believed defendant was responsible for causing
delay. To the contrary, the trial court repeatedly recognized that defendant wanted
a speedy trial and, after more than four years of delay, responded to defendant’s
complaints by stating, “I think it’s safe to say it’s been your concern all along that
not enough has been done in your case.” After defendant assumed Faretta status a
year later, however, he began engaging in behavior that the trial court later
deemed dilatory. During the 10-and-a-half months defendant represented himself,
he failed to subpoena a single witness or turn over any discovery, yet he initiated a
malpractice suit against Gunn and filed multiple motions to disqualify the trial
judge and the prosecutor. He experienced conflict with his investigator, who
eventually wrote a letter to the court stating, “I find it impossible to work with Mr.
Williams.” During the hearing on June 28, 2001, the prosecutor accused the
defendant of having done “everything to delay the proceedings in his dealings with
the investigator” and further alleged that defendant had refused to cooperate with
his attorneys and was attempting to stall “in the hopes that Conya [would] die[]”
and that other witnesses would become unavailable.

46
In a ruling that marks a notable shift in tone, the trial court agreed with
defendant that he was “in over his head” and stated that “all of these have been
delay tactics.” The trial therefore revoked defendant’s Faretta status. Three
weeks later, on August 20, 2001, Gunn asked to withdraw because communication
between him and defendant had broken down and because he now believed
defendant’s pending lawsuit against him posed a conflict. The trial court stated
that “it’s another way of him delaying this trial by suing you. [¶] Next thing, Mr.
Cormicle is going to be sued for malpractice. Where does it end?” A few months
later, the trial court chastised defendant for firing his lawyers or representing
himself “[w]hen the case . . . gets near the time for trial.” These comments make
clear that the trial court believed defendant was responsible for the delays during
and after defendant’s attempt at self-representation, a finding to which we owe
deference. (See Doggett, supra, 505 U.S. at p. 652.) Accordingly, defendant is
responsible for the delay during this period as well.
Having accounted for these periods and the other minor delays discussed
above, we are still confronted with a period of roughly four years during which
defendant was incarcerated awaiting trial. Upon careful review of the record, we
think it is clear that the lion’s share of delay resulted from defense counsel’s lack
of progress in preparing this case for trial. However, because we are unable to
conclude on appellate review of the record before us that the delay resulted from a
“systemic ‘breakdown in the public defender system’ ” (Brillon, supra, 556 U.S. at
p. 94), we must, as a matter of law, charge the delay resulting from defense
counsel’s lack of progress to defendant.
(a)
From early to late in the pretrial proceedings, the record provides little
indication that defense counsel, apart from Feiger and Cormicle, worked diligently
on defendant’s case. During a Marsden hearing on January 17, 1996, after

47
defendant complained that his case was “getting nowhere” and that “[m]y attorney
had my case for six months, and it’s nothing — it’s like we ain’t took one step,”
defendant’s attorney Forest Wright said, “He’s right. I am too busy. I would like
to get rid of a few cases.” On May 3, 1996, when defendant again expressed
frustration with Wright’s lack of progress, Wright said vaguely that “we’re not in a
position to recite everything at this point, but I know there’s been a considerable
amount of work done.” Wright said that he was proceeding “as diligently as [he
could] at this point, given the staff level that [he had] among qualified persons”
but that his being “in court every day, all day” was impeding his ability to work on
motions.
After defendant again complained on August 30, 1996, that “everything
that [defense counsel] stipulated that he needed the extra 60 days for [at the last
hearing], . . . still none of them was completed,” Wright asserted that “a lot has
been done in this matter” and indicated he would be prepared for trial on October
7, 1996. Less than two weeks later, however, Wright indicated he would not be
prepared by the October 7, 1996, trial date and requested the appointment of
second counsel, which the trial court denied. On September 27, 1996, Wright
moved to continue the trial date on the ground that he had “not completed
investigation of the ‘guilt/innocence phase’ of the case” and because his “on-going
duties to represent other clients . . . necessitate[d] [his] diligent attention to nine
felony cases . . . set for jury trial before the end of November, 1996, and also to
one other death penalty case.”
In December 1996, Wright provided the prosecution with a list of
unresolved discovery issues. With the appointment of Mara Feiger as cocounsel
on January 15, 1997, hearings on discovery-related matters began to move forward
in February 1997, apparently to defendant’s satisfaction. In a motion for a
continuance filed on March 28, 1997, Wright stated in a sworn declaration: “In

48
part, as a consequence of my schedule and case load, I was unable to focus on the
instant case to the degree which I should have. The . . . extent of that this situation
has affected the present state of preparedness for trial, I must take full
responsibility. Since February 1997, however, I have not been assigned new
cases.”
After more than a year of litigating discovery disputes, the public
defender’s office declared a conflict requiring Wright and Feiger to withdraw.
The public defender’s office did not explain the conflict, stating only that it was “a
result . . . of information that we received recently from the prosecution . . . we felt
should have been provided much earlier in the case.” The trial court relieved
Wright and Feiger on April 3, 1998, which resulted in six months of apparent
inactivity as the criminal defense panel attempted to secure counsel for defendant
and as two CDP attorneys, Grover Porter and Douglas Myers, were each appointed
but then quickly relieved.
At the beginning of October 1998, John Aquilina was appointed to
represent defendant. Over the next several months, Aquilina sought two
continuances to evaluate the case and to conduct investigation. On April 23, 1999,
seven months into his representation of defendant, Aquilina told the trial court in
camera that “no investigation [to] my knowledge has been conducted since the
public defender’s office was relieved in April of ’98.” He said that Porter had
retained an investigator in June 1998 but that neither Porter nor Aquilina had
asked the investigator to “conduct any investigation whatsoever.” The record
discloses no reason why defense counsel had not utilized the investigator.
Aquilina said a new investigator would be available in June 1999. At the same
hearing, nearly four years after defendant was arrested, Aquilina said “it would
appear all an attorney would have to do [after Wright and Feiger withdrew] is
catch up to what has occurred. Quite candidly, I don’t see that even five percent

49
of the investigation necessary in the guilt phase of this case has been conducted.”
Further, Aquilina acknowledged he had not been able to work on defendant’s case
because he had been engaged on two other capital cases and because “mentally,
emotionally, psychologically” he could not handle “three capital cases in one year
in a twelve-month period.”
After seeking a further continuance on May 13, 1999, Aquilina eventually
withdrew from the case on August 30, 1999, because of a conflict of interest. The
record does not show that much, if anything, was accomplished in defendant’s
case during the 11 months of Aquilina’s appointment. The table of contents for all
records filed during Aquilana’s representation shows that there were 11 trial
readiness conferences, two motions to continue, two Marsden motions, and
nothing else.
On September 2, 1999, David Gunn was appointed to represent defendant.
Gunn told the court he needed several weeks to evaluate the case and to secure
cocounsel. On December 17, 1999, the trial court granted the prosecution’s
motion to sever defendant’s case from that of his codefendant, and Bruce
Cormicle joined the case as cocounsel for defendant. On December 21, 1999,
Gunn sought a continuance because he had “about eight murder cases still set
pending for next year,” and the court continued the trial date to October 2, 2000.
During an April 7, 2000, status conference, Gunn said in passing that the defense
was “on track” but that he had “lost [his] investigator due to family problems” and
that he was trying to get new investigators “on board.” On June 9, 2000, Gunn
told the court that he had just gotten funding approved for an investigator and that
before the funding approval, there was “about two months where we kind of lost
our ability to have investigative work done.” On July 14, 2000, after defendant
complained that no investigation had occurred and that “the case been at a stand
still for 10 months since Dave Gunn been on the case,” Gunn acknowledged that

50
he had lost “three to four months, in terms of actual preparation of the
investigation” due to problems finding an investigator and obtaining the requisite
funding. Gunn also acknowledged that the investigator had not met with
defendant since funding was approved because of “vacations” and because of the
investigator’s work on another death penalty case.
The reporter’s transcript from September 2, 1999, to August 16, 2000,
amounts to only 93 pages, most of which consist of Marsden hearings. The
clerk’s transcript for this period consists mainly of 11 minute orders noting trial
readiness conferences. Gunn, like Aquilina, did not appear to pursue any of the
discovery that Feiger sought from the prosecution in 1997 and that Cormicle
finally obtained in 2002. The record does not indicate how much investigation
actually occurred under Gunn’s supervision. Gunn acknowledged that he had lost
his investigator by early April 2000, and two years later, Cormicle, who served as
cocounsel with Gunn and then inherited the case when Gunn withdrew, said he
“basically started from scratch.” If Gunn had made meaningful progress on
defendant’s case, presumably Cormicle would have known about it.
From August 2000 to June 2001, defendant represented himself, and Gunn
was appointed as standby counsel. After the trial court revoked defendant’s
Faretta status, Gunn resumed his representation of defendant, and the court, at
Gunn’s request, continued the matter to August 20, 2001. On August 20, 2001,
Gunn asked to withdraw from the case because of a breakdown in his relationship
with defendant and because of defendant’s malpractice suit against him — a
potential conflict that defendant had brought to Gunn’s attention 10 and a half
months earlier on October 6, 2000.
After Cormicle took over the case, the trial court granted several
continuances requested by Cormicle before setting the eventual trial date of July 1,
2002. Between August 2001 and July 2002, it appears that Cormicle pursued the

51
case with reasonable diligence. On April 23, 2002, Cormicle complained at length
that he was still receiving documents “that should have been turned over seven
years ago but were not.” The prosecution responded, “The problem with why that
was not turned over earlier is because of the revolving door of defense attorneys”
who failed to “follow through” with discovery. On April 25, 2002, nearly seven
years after defendant was arrested, Cormicle told the court: “We basically started
from scratch; nothing had been done for the past six years essentially.”
The record thus indicates that most of the delay in this case, apart from the
periods already attributed to defendant, resulted from defense counsel’s failure to
make progress in preparing defendant’s case. Consistent with defendant’s
frequent complaints, defense counsel repeatedly acknowledged — at the
beginning, in the middle, and even toward the end of the pretrial period — that
little or no work had been done on defendant’s case. The problem was
exacerbated by what the prosecution called “the revolving door of defense
attorneys.” Defendant was represented by a total of eight attorneys over the
seven-year period — two from the public defender’s office (Wright and Feiger)
and six from the criminal defense panel (Porter, Myers, Aquilina, Filippone, Gunn,
and Cormicle) — each of whom needed time to review the case and many of
whom apparently spent months doing little or no work on the case, only to
withdraw later because of a conflict.
We are mindful of the weight and complexity of the heavy caseloads that
many public defenders carry, and we recognize the essential service that public
defenders provide to their clients and to the criminal justice system. Further, we
realize that defense counsel generally act out of duty and good faith when they
resist subjecting their clients to trial until defense theories and evidence have been
fully investigated and developed. Here, however, the apparent inability of
multiple attorneys — first Deputy Public Defender Forest Wright and then CDP

52
attorneys Grover Porter, Douglas Myers, John Aquilina, Regina Filippone, and
David Gunn — to move defendant’s case forward in a timely manner suggests
more than the usual challenges facing appointed counsel.
(b)
The question is whether defense counsel’s failure to make progress in
defendant’s case is chargeable to the state or to defendant for purposes of speedy
trial analysis. In Brillon, supra, 556 U.S. 81, the United States Supreme Court
established a “general rule” that “delays sought by [assigned] counsel are
ordinarily attributable to the defendants they represent.” (Id. at pp. 85, 94.) The
high court cautioned, however, that “the State may bear responsibility if there is ‘a
breakdown in the public defender system.’ ” (Id. at p. 85.) We must examine
whether the delays that occurred in this case were the result of such a breakdown.
The high court has not had occasion to explain what constitutes a
breakdown in the public defender system, although it concluded that no such
breakdown occurred in Brillon. The defendant in Brillon was arrested on felony
domestic assault and habitual offender charges in July 2001 and convicted by a
jury in June 2004. (Brillon, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 84.) “During the time between
Brillon’s arrest and his trial, at least six different attorneys were appointed to
represent him.” (Ibid.) Brillon’s trial was initially scheduled for February 2002.
Four days before jury selection, Brillon’s first attorney, Richard Ammons, “moved
for a continuance, citing his heavy workload and the need for further
investigation.” (Id. at p. 86.) The trial court denied the motion, at which point
Brillon announced: “ ‘You’re fired, Rick.’ ” (Ibid.) Three days later, on the eve
of trial, the trial court “granted Ammons’s motion to withdraw as counsel, citing
Brillon’s termination of Ammons and Ammons’ statement that he could no longer
zealously represent Brillon.” (Ibid.; see id. at p. 86, fn. 3 [noting that Ammons
also cited “ ‘certain irreconcilable differences in preferred approach between Mr.

53
Brillon and counsel as to trial strategy, as well as other legitimate legal
decisions’ ”].) “The trial court warned Brillon that further delay would occur
while a new attorney became familiar with the case.” (Id. at p. 86.)
Brillon’s second attorney withdrew almost immediately “based on a
conflict.” (Brillon, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 86.) A third attorney, Gerard Altieri,
represented Brillon from March 2002 to June 2002. During this period, Brillon
moved to dismiss Altieri because of “failure to file motions, ‘[v]irtually no
communication whatsoever,’ and his lack of diligence ‘because of heavy case
load.’ ” (Ibid.) At a June 11, 2002, hearing on Brillon’s motion, “Altieri denied
several of Brillon’s allegations, noted his disagreement with Brillon’s trial
strategy, and insisted he had plenty of time to prepare.” (Id. at pp. 86–87,
fn. omitted.) Later that day, however, “Altieri moved to withdraw on the ground
that Brillon had threatened his life during a break in the proceedings. The trial
court granted Brillon’s motion to dismiss Altieri, but warned Brillon that ‘this is
somewhat of a dubious victory in your case because it simply prolongs the time
that you will remain in jail until we can bring this matter to trial.’ ” (Id. at p. 87.)
“That same day, the trial court appointed Paul Donaldson as Brillon’s fourth
counsel.” (Ibid.)
A few weeks later, Brillon complained about Donaldson’s
“unresponsive[ness] and lack of competence” and, as with Altieri, moved to
dismiss Donaldson “for failure to file motions and ‘virtually no communication
whatsoever.’ ” (Brillon, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 87.) When Donaldson reported that
his contract with the public defender’s office had expired, the trial court released
him on November 26, 2002, without making any findings regarding the adequacy
of his representation. His fifth attorney, David Sleigh, was appointed on January
15, 2003, but withdrew on April 10, 2003, because of a change to his firm’s
contract with the public defender’s office. Brillon was without counsel for the

54
next four months. His sixth attorney, Kathleen Moore, was appointed on August
1, 2003. Moore filed a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds on February 23,
2004, which the trial court denied. Moore brought the case to trial on June 14,
2004. After Brillon was convicted, Moore again filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of a speedy trial, which the trial court again denied. (Id. at pp. 87–88.)
The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that the three-year delay violated
Brillon’s right to a speedy trial, reasoning that “delay caused by assigned
counsel’s ‘inaction’ or failure ‘to move [the] case forward’ is chargeable to the
State, not the defendant.” (Brillon, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 92.) The United States
Supreme Court reversed and held that “delays sought by counsel are ordinarily
attributable to the defendants they represent.” (Id. at p. 85.) The extensions and
continuances sought by Brillon’s attorneys “must . . . be attributed to Brillon as
delays caused by his counsel,” and “their ‘inability or unwillingness . . . to move
the case forward,’ [citation], may not be attributed to the State simply because
they are assigned counsel.” (Id. at pp. 92–93.) In support of its holding, the high
court said: “A contrary conclusion could encourage appointed counsel to delay
proceedings by seeking unreasonable continuances, hoping thereby to obtain a
dismissal of the indictment on speedy-trial grounds. Trial courts might well
respond by viewing continuance requests made by appointed counsel with
skepticism, concerned that even an apparently genuine need for more time is in
reality a delay tactic.” (Id. at p. 93.)
In addition, the high court held that the Vermont court also “erred by
treating the period of each counsel’s representation discretely” instead of “tak[ing]
into account Brillon’s role during the first year of delay in ‘the chain of events that
started all this.’ [Citation.]” (Brillon, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 93.) The high court
noted that Brillon had fired Ammons on the eve of trial and that Brillon’s
“strident, aggressive behavior with regard to Altieri, whom he threatened, . . .

55
likely made it more difficult . . . to find replacement counsel. Even after the trial
court’s warning regarding delay, Brillon sought dismissal of yet another attorney,
Donaldson.” (Ibid.) The high court explained that “[a]bsent Brillon’s deliberate
efforts to force the withdrawal of Ammons and Altieri, no speedy-trial issue would
have arisen,” and that the subsequent delay in his case must be viewed in the
context of these earlier events. (Id. at p. 94.)
Finally, the high court said: “The general rule attributing to the defendant
delay caused by assigned counsel is not absolute. Delay resulting from a systemic
‘breakdown in the public defender system,’ [citation], could be charged to the
State.” (Brillon, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 94.) In addition, “gaps result[ing] from the
trial court’s failure to appoint replacement counsel with dispatch” may be charged
to the State. (Id. at 85.) In Brillon, “the Vermont Supreme Court made no
determination, and nothing in the record suggests, that institutional problems
caused any part of the delay in Brillon’s case.” (Id. at p. 94.)
The case before us differs from Brillon in certain respects. In Brillon, the
defendant’s disruptive conduct during the first year of the pretrial period led to
subsequent delay. (Brillon, supra, 556 U.S. at pp. 93–94.) Here, there is no
indication that defendant disrupted proceedings except for his efforts, after waiting
five years for a trial, to remove Gunn out of frustration with the lack of progress in
his case. As noted, defendant is responsible for the delay caused by his self-
representation. But there is no indication that defendant ever acted in a “strident”
or “aggressive” manner, or that he ever “threatened [the] life” of his attorneys or
made it difficult to appoint counsel. (Id. at p. 93.) It is true that defendant filed a
malpractice suit against Gunn around October 2000. But unlike “Brillon’s role
during the first year of delay in ‘the chain of events that started all this’ ” (ibid.),
defendant’s lawsuit occurred more than five years into the pretrial period.
Because it appears that Gunn had accomplished little up to that point, it is unlikely

56
the conflict posed by the lawsuit somehow sapped the defense effort of
momentum. Moreover, Gunn acknowledged that defendant had been cooperative
with his cocounsel Cormicle. Had Gunn withdrawn earlier instead of waiting until
August 2001 to declare a conflict, Cormicle, who eventually brought the case to
trial, would have become lead counsel earlier.
Moreover, whereas Brillon sought to dismiss his attorneys (in one instance
on the eve of trial) in part because of his own preferences concerning trial strategy
(see Brillon, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 86, fn. 3; id. at p. 86 & fn. 4), the record here
indicates that defendant’s Marsden motions (at least those filed before his Faretta
status) were his way of complaining not about trial strategy but about his
attorneys’ continual and often conceded lack of progress in preparing for trial.
Not all of defendant’s Marsden motions sought to dismiss counsel; the trial court
acknowledged the purpose of defendant’s Marsden motions when it said in April
1999, “I’ve held a few Marsden motions with you and a few motions that weren’t
truly Marsden motions, but when we got to talk about what’s going on — and I
think it’s safe to say it’s been your concern all along that not enough has been
done in your case.”
Because Brillon’s conduct during the first year resulted in subsequent
delays (see Brillon, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 94 [“Absent Brillon’s deliberate efforts
to force the withdrawal of Ammons and Altieri, no speedy-trial issue would have
arisen.”]), the high court characterized “the three-year delay” as “caused mostly by
Brillon” (id. at p. 92, fn. 8). Here, by contrast, defendant endured a much longer
delay, approximately four years of which resulted from the chronic lack of
progress and repeated coming and going of defense counsel notwithstanding
defendant’s recurring complaints that nothing was being done to bring him to trial.

57
(c)
Brillon did not define what constitutes a “systemic ‘breakdown in the
public defender system.’ ” (Brillon, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 94.) But the high court
did advert to “institutional problems” (ibid.), presumably in contrast to problems
with individual attorneys. In this appeal, defendant contends that the “revolving
door” of appointed counsel over the lengthy pretrial period qualifies as a
“ ‘systemic breakdown in the public defender system’ ” within the meaning of
Brillon. As detailed above, the record indicates that several of defendant’s
attorneys appeared to make little or no progress in preparing his case for trial. But
our specific focus in this inquiry must be on whether a systemic breakdown has
occurred, not on whether any particular attorney or attorneys performed
deficiently. It is possible that the “revolving door” of appointed counsel in this
case is indicative of “institutional problems” (Brillon, at p. 94) in Riverside
County’s Indigent Defense Program. But the record on appeal contains no facts
that affirmatively support this conclusion. Because defendant did not file a motion
to dismiss on speedy trial grounds in the trial court, the underlying cause of the
delay in this case was never litigated, the various statements by defendant and his
attorneys were never examined in an adversarial proceeding, and the trial court
made no findings that might inform the issue before us.
As a result, there is much we do not know about why this case appeared to
languish in the hands of several of defendant’s attorneys. We do not know
whether the unspecified conflict that ended Forest Wright and Mara Feiger’s
representation after more than two and a half years was reasonably avoidable, or
whether it resulted from a flaw in the public defender’s mechanism for identifying
and avoiding conflicts. We do not know whether the conflict that ended John
Aquilina’s representation after 11 months could reasonably have been avoided or
discovered earlier by Aquilina or by the criminal defense panel, or whether it was

58
simply an unfortunate but unforeseeable happenstance. We do not know whether
the sixth-month delay in 1998 before Aquilina’s appointment, during which
defendant did not have stable counsel, resulted from problems in the criminal
defense panel’s assignment system, or whether it resulted from mishaps that could
not reasonably be anticipated or prevented. And with respect to the various
attorneys who appeared to do little or no work on defendant’s case, we do not
know whether the lack of progress was attributable to each attorney’s own
inability to properly manage or prioritize his or her caseload, or whether the
performance of individual attorneys was indicative of unreasonable resource
constraints, misallocated resources, inadequate monitoring or supervision, or other
systemic problems.
As noted earlier, the record in this case suggests more than the usual
challenges facing appointed counsel. But in the absence of evidence identifying
systemic or institutional problems and not just problems with individual attorneys,
we are unable to conclude on direct appeal that the delay experienced by
defendant resulted from a breakdown in the public defender system. In other
words, the record before us contains no facts about the public defender system that
would support a finding of a systemic breakdown. Accordingly, on this record, we
are required by Brillon to charge to defendant the delay in this case resulting from
defense counsel’s lack of progress.
(3)
We turn finally to the role of the trial court. Defendant contends that the
trial court’s denial of his motion to sever his case from that of his codefendant
“was another significant cause of pretrial delay.” But there is a statutory
preference for joint trials of jointly charged defendants (§ 1098), and “past
decisions of this court make it clear that the substantial state interests served by a
joint trial properly may support a finding of good cause to continue a

59
codefendant’s trial” (People v. Sutton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 533, 560; see also
§ 1050.1). During the early stages of the pretrial proceedings, the trial court
properly found that the state interests served by a joint trial justified denial of the
severance motion. Later, when it became clear that separate trials would likely be
required to obviate Aranda/Bruton concerns (see People v. Aranda (1965) 63
Cal.2d 518, 530 [severance may be appropriate when prosecution proposes to
introduce into evidence an extrajudicial statement of one defendant that implicates
a codefendant]; Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 [nontestifying
codefendant’s extrajudicial statement that incriminates the other defendant is
inadmissible at a joint trial]), the trial court agreed to sever the cases. We find no
error in these decisions.
Defense counsel’s lack of progress put the trial court in a difficult position.
When a defense attorney requests more time to prepare for trial, the trial court
must balance a defendant’s right to a speedy trial with his right to competent
counsel. (Lomax, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 556.) “If counsel seeks reasonable time
to prepare a defendant’s case, and the delay is for defendant’s benefit, a
continuance over the defendant’s objection is justified.” (Ibid.) At the same time,
the high court has said that “the primary burden [falls] on the courts and the
prosecutors to assure that cases are brought to trial.” (Barker, supra, 407 U.S. at
p. 529.) In this case, the prosecution was prepared to bring defendant to trial, but
the trial court repeatedly indulged defense counsel’s requests for continuances due
to lack of preparation.
We appreciate the dilemma confronting the trial court and do not suggest
that it abused its discretion in granting the 19 continuances that occurred here. But
we note (with the obvious benefit of hindsight) that the trial court could have done
more to move this case to trial once the mounting delay became evident. For
example, when Aquilina informed the court in April 1999 that he had done no

60
work on the case but would soon get started, the court accepted Aquilina’s
assurances and, a few weeks later, continued the trial date. The court did not insist
on a timeline for investigation or discovery, or otherwise more closely monitor
progress in the case, even as it recognized that the case was “the oldest one in the
courthouse.” Subsequently, Gunn took over the case in September 1999. Ten
months later, in July 2000, defendant complained that no investigation had
occurred under Gunn, and Gunn acknowledged he had lost his investigator three
or fourth months earlier. Despite these problems, and despite no indication that
Gunn had pursued an

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2646881. Public record. Not legal advice.