What is the effect of refusing to appoint counsel to a defendant at trial and then forcing him to represent himself at trial?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Jones, 66 Cal.App.4th 760, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 265 (Cal. App. 1998):

What is crucial for purposes of both the former testimony exception and the confrontation clause is whether the previous opportunity for cross-examination was effective. Thus, if the trial court had refused to appoint counsel for defendant and had forced him to represent himself at the first trial, the testimony of witnesses who subsequently became unavailable would not have been admissible at the second trial. (Pointer v. Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400, 406-408, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923.) This is not because defendant's right to counsel would have been violated (id., at pp. 402-403, 85 S.Ct. 1065), but because the assistance of counsel tends to promote effective cross-examination. (Id., at p. 407, 85 S.Ct. 1065.)

Even ineffective assistance of counsel at the first trial need not render former testimony inadmissible, unless the ineffective assistance actually affected the cross-examination. In Mancusi v. Stubbs (1972) 408

Page 269

Other Questions


When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
If a defendant makes a motion for a continuance of trial on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, is it appropriate to appoint a new counsel to prepare the motion? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant's claim that the trial court's failure to provide him with the means and subpoena witnesses to defend at trial a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at trial reversible? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel when a trial court denies his motion to substitute one appointed counsel for another? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant who is represented by counsel during the first part of a criminal trial invoke his right to self-representation mid-trial? (California, United States of America)
How has the trial court treated a motion to suppress a motion by a public defender appointed to represent defendant? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant argue on appeal that counsel's inaction at trial to alleged prosecutorial misconduct violated his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant who is not represented by counsel participate in the conduct of the trial during the trial? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant argue on appeal that counsel's inaction at trial to alleged prosecutorial misconduct violated their constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a motion for a new trial alleging inadequacy of counsel, does the court have to appoint a new counsel? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.