holding that defendants represented by 25 appointed counsel may discharge their attorneys and substitute new counsel if their right 26 to counsel would be substantially impaired by continuing with the original attorney
How later courts described this case
- holding that defendants represented by 25 appointed counsel may discharge their attorneys and substitute new counsel if their right 26 to counsel would be substantially impaired by continuing with the original attorney
- recognizing that a California criminal defendant may move to have his court-appointed attorney substituted for different counsel if the appointed attorney is rendering inadequate assistance
- holding that court may not deny defendant's motion for substitution of counsel without giving defendant a chance to state to the court the precise reasons for his motion
- holding that a trial judge must permit a criminal defendant requesting substitute counsel an opportunity to present argument and evidence in support of such request
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by People v. Lucky, 45 Cal. 3d 259 (1988)
The People contend that both Marsden and Lewis are easily distinguishable from the facts of the instant case.
The opinion
McCOMB, J.
I dissent.
I would affirm the judgment for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Caldecott in the opinion prepared by him for the Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three (People v. Marsden, 1 Crim. 7601, filed October 10, 1969, certified for nonpublication).