Is ineffective assistance of counsel a factor in the denial of a continuance?
The following excerpt is from Cerda v. United States, 462 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1972):
No consideration need be given to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Our review of the district court's denial of a continuance sought by appellant's counsel in order to seek the production of the informant convinces us that the fact that an earlier continuance had been granted was just one of a number of reasons for the denial. Furthermore, there was no suggestion that the court did not realize that the earlier delay had been sought by the Government or that knowledge of that fact would have affected the court's desire to avoid further delay. We therefore find insubstantial any suggestion that defense counsel's failure to point out that the initiation of the earlier delay lay with the Government constituted the necessary farce or mockery of justice to make out a Sixth Amendment claim.
[462 F.2d 945]
See, e. g., Vargas v. United States, 455 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1972); Murgia v. United States, 448 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1971).[462 F.2d 945]
Reversed and remanded for hearing.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
