Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Cooks v. Newland

Cooks v. Newland, No. 03-56326 (1-19-05). As Faretta claims go, this ispretty interesting. the defendant was representing himself on one robberycharge; he has a lawyer on the second charge. the state moved to consolidate,which the court did, and the joint trial was held. The petitioner said thathaving the lawyer represent him on one robbery, while he was representinghimself on the other, undermined his Faretta right and implicated due process. He was "forced" to choose. The 9th affirmed the denial of the petition becausethere was no controlling precedent, and the state's interpretation wasreasonable. The affirmance was supported by the concession defense counsel madethat if the two robberies were indicted together, there wouldn't be a Farettaproblem.


Post a Comment

<< Home