California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Crandell, 251 Cal.Rptr. 227, 46 Cal.3d 833, 760 P.2d 423 (Cal. 1988):
The majority concede that the lower court erred by failing to exercise its discretion on defendant's several requests for the appointment of advisory counsel. The majority also acknowledge that such failure requires automatic reversal of the conviction in cases in which a refusal to grant the request would have been an abuse of discretion. ( People v. Bigelow, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 744, 209 Cal.Rptr. 328, 691 P.2d 994.) However, they find that the court's denial of defendant's request in this case would not have been an abuse of discretion, and that the court's failure to exercise its discretion was harmless. I disagree on both points. Had the court thoughtfully considered defendant's request and denied it, I would find that ruling an abuse of discretion and reverse the conviction under the per se rule in Bigelow. Furthermore, we can only speculate how the advice of counsel would have changed the content and result of defendant's trial. That he performed well given his lack of training says nothing about how he would have performed with the assistance of advisory counsel; nor does it assist in predicting whether the jury would have returned a verdict more favorable to him.
[46 Cal.3d 898]
Page 265
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.