Opinion ID: 1312308
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Keenan Motion

Text: (5) The decision whether to grant a defendant's motion for the appointment of a second attorney in a capital case also rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. ( Keenan v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 424, 430, 434 [180 Cal. Rptr. 489, 640 P.2d 108]; § 987, subd. (d).) In Keenan we recognized that in a death penalty case, where the legal and factual issues were complex, other criminal acts were alleged, there were a large number of witnesses, complicated scientific and psychiatric testimony was anticipated, and extensive pretrial motions would be made ( id., at p. 434), the court may grant defendant's motion for a second counsel. (2b) After reviewing the record, we are satisfied the court exercised proper discretion in denying defendant's Keenan motion. Defendant never argued any specific or compelling reasons requiring the assistance of additional counsel. Accordingly, no error occurred in denying the Keenan request. (See People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 288 [168 Cal. Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149].)