 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allen v. State4/2/2002
e throughout the trial you have been conferring with [defense counsel]. And I would urge you to continue to do so.
At the conclusion of the witnesses here today - I'm not going to delay this trial right now. I'll give you a chance to be heard on the record. Okay?
[APPELLANT]: Thank you, Your Honor.
Later that day, the district court allowed appellant to be heard outside the jury's presence. Appellant was primarily concerned that his defense counsel did not inquire as to why unspecified prior written witness statements (presumably referring to Linda Evans and/or Tina Evans) were "drastically different" than the witnesses' testimony and reiterated his general belief that he was not "adequately represented . . .." Appellant stated that he
put in five separate motions for alternate assistance of counsel. And I've been denied. I've got two motions that I wasn't even heard on. So it's not like this is something that just came up while I'm sitting here in today's proceedings. This is something that has been a question in my mind since day one. I honestly don't believe I'm adequately represented on this.
The district court observed that
[o]ne of the things I note in trial proceedings, especially, is there are rules of evidence that govern what you can ask. And so very often lay people will have ideas about things they think should be asked or inquired about, but they might not come within the rules of evidence.
And until you have gone through not just law school but also the experience of having been in court a lot, it's hard to understand how those rules work. Also, I know there's a lot to trial tactics. And [defense counsel] has appeared in several jury trials before this Court. And very often you do not want to ask certain types of questions because they can backfire on you or not be the questions that will fit with your theory of the case. So I make those observations to you.
In the course of this trial, I've observed [defense counsel's] questioning, his voir dire, his objecting. And it seems to me he has been diligently representing you . . ..
. . . I've already noted . . . that throughout this case and its proceedings, I have not seen anything that would constitute inadequate representation of the defendant in this case.
We've gone through motion proceedings; we've gone through pretrial matters; we've gone through trial proceedings here today. And I don't see anything that would constitute inadequate representation.
. . . I don't know what the defendant would want me to do after the trial has begun here. I don't think there's any actions the Court can take, especially absent some type of showing of inability to communicate with counsel, mistakes being made, that would drastically affect the defense's right in this case.
The district court encouraged defense counsel to continue communicating with appellant about the anticipated witnesses and appellant's desired areas of inquiry.
[ ] Considering the stage in the proceedings, the district court's assessment of appellant's defense counsel, and that counsel appeared to have conferred with appellant to this point during the trial, appellant did not demonstrate good cause to justify the appointment of substitute counsel. Defense counsel did cross-examine Tina Evans regarding why she did not include information that she testified to in a prior written statement, and we note that whether and how to conduct cross-examination generally is a strategic and tactical decision to be made by counsel after consultation with the client, where feasible and appropriate. Grainey v. State, 997 P.2d 1035, 1040-41 (Wyo. 2000) (quoting ABA Standards for C
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|