California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Clemmons, 224 Cal.App.3d 1500, 274 Cal.Rptr. 623 (Cal. App. 1990):
What occurred here was not an interference with the right to counsel, retained or appointed, but was a restriction on defendant's cross-examination of the witnesses. This was not a situation where defendant's fundamental right to representation was abrogated. Nor was the court required to advise defendant of the pitfalls of his choice such as where a defendant chooses to proceed in propria persona, with joint counsel representing more than one defendant, or with counsel who has a conflict of interest. Although he was not afforded dual cross-examination of witnesses, defendant was otherwise afforded the benefit of two skilled attorneys dedicated solely to his cause throughout his trial, a benefit normally reserved for defendants facing a possible death penalty. "[T]he right [to counsel] is not infringed when 'the opportunity [of the defense] to participate fully and fairly in the adversary factfinding process' [citation] is not significantly limited." (People v. Bonin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 659, 695, 250 Cal.Rptr. 687, 758 P.2d 1217, third set of brackets in original.)
The right of cross-examination as a primary interest secured by the constitutional right to confrontation is not absolute.
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.