Opinion ID: 2979989
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substitute Counsel

Text: Both defendants contend that the district court erred when it denied their request for new appointed counsel. We review for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Vasquez, 560 F.3d 451, 466 (6th Cir. 2009). A district court abuses its discretion where it “relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applies the law, or uses an erroneous legal standard.” Id. (quoting United States v. Chambers, 441 F.3d 438, 446 (6th Cir. 2006)). When “granting of the defendant’s request would almost certainly necessitate a last-minute continuance, the trial judge’s actions are entitled to extraordinary deference.” Id. at 467 (quoting United States v. Whitfield, 259 F. App’x 830, 834 (6th Cir. 2008)). This court considers four factors in reviewing a denial of a motion to substitute counsel: (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. United States v. Mack, 258 F.3d 548, 556 (6th Cir. 2001). The defendants’ requests for substitute counsel were untimely because they raised them at the final pre-trial conference. The district court demonstrated full awareness of the conflict between the Domenech brothers and their counsel – defendants blamed counsel for failing to put them on the stand at the suppression hearing to testify about their reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room. The defendants’ attorneys did not possess a conflict of interest and demonstrated the ability to put on a reasonable defense. Finally, -9- Nos. 08-1220 & 08-1221 United States v. Domenech the public interest weighed in favor of denying the request as the court previously delayed the trial date for nearly a year due to a prior counsel substitution.