Opinion ID: 179514
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Substitute Counsel

Text: Henderson contends the trial court erred by failing to order substitution of new defense counsel after learning of reason to believe there had been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship between Diane Menashe and himself. He contends he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel. The claim grows out of an incident that occurred during jury selection voir dire. Henderson took exception to the way in which Menashe was asking certain voir dire questions. He asked her to rephrase her questions. Then, as he was wearing a restraining device that would, in the event of a problem, shock him, [he] joked with counsel that if she did not desist, he would hug her so that when the officer activated the restraining device, it would shock her as well. Appellant's brief p. 28. Henderson contends Menashe did not see the humor in this, took it as a threat, and refused to communicate with the Appellant. Id. When the court learned there was a problem, it made inquiry in a separate proceeding (outside the presence of the government), but Henderson now contends the inquiry was inadequate. He argues the court failed to ensure that counsel could continue to effectively represent him. The transcript of the separate proceeding conclusively defeats Henderson's challenge to the adequacy of the district court's inquiry. When the court asked Menashe about the extent to which the misunderstanding would interfere with her ability to zealously represent Henderson, she responded unequivocally, None whatsoever, Your Honor. Separate record tr. p. 5. For his part, Henderson expressed his satisfaction with Menashe's representation, saying she has been doing an outstanding job to this point. Id. at 16. Reassured that both attorney and client understood their roles in the relationship, the court told them the issue would be revisited if communication became a problem during the trial. Id. at 14. Neither Henderson nor Menashe requested substitution of counsel and it appears no further question regarding the integrity of the attorney-client relationship arose during the remainder of the trial. In United States v. Vasquez, 560 F.3d 461 (6th Cir.2009), the court observed that a defendant who wants substitution of appointed counsel must bring any serious dissatisfaction with counsel to the attention of the district court. Id. at 466 (quoting Benitez v. United States, 521 F.3d 625, 632 (6th Cir.2008)). Once a defendant expresses his dissatisfaction with counsel, the district court is obliged to conduct an inquiry into the defendant's complaint to determine whether there is good cause for substitution of counsel. Id. The court considers the following factors: When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to withdraw or substitute counsel, we generally must consider: (1) the timeliness of the motion, (2) the adequacy of the court's inquiry into the matter, (3) the extent of the conflict between the attorney and client and whether it was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense, and (4) the balancing of these factors with the public's interest in the prompt and efficient administration of justice. Id. (quoting United States v. Mack, 258 F.3d 548, 556 (6th Cir.2001)). Review of the separate hearing record clearly demonstrates that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of the misunderstanding between Henderson and his counsel. Considering that Henderson never requested substitution of counsel, did not assert that there was a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and expressed satisfaction, not dissatisfaction, with counsel's performance, the district court's handling of the matter was entirely appropriate.