Opinion ID: 1300630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal to relieve trial counsel.

Text: On the eighth day of trial, the prosecutor was cross-examining Dr. Thompson, asking him if he had recently testified in the Sixto case. Over a defense objection, the prosecutor was permitted to explore this area, raising the possible inference that Dr. Thompson was biased in the defendant's favor since he was paid about $100 an hour and often testified in cases wherein defense counsel Cook was involved, such as the Sixto case and the Delling case. The following Saturday, the Bakersfield Californian, apparently the area's largest daily newspaper, revealed that Cook had received a judicial reprimand as counsel in the Sixto case. The article stated as follows: Cook represented the defendant in Sixto, a capital case before Judge Jelletich. Sixto had already received the death penalty, but the court was waiting for a promised new-trial motion based on Cook's assertion he had discovered new evidence. On the scheduled hearing date, Cook averred he was unable to proceed because he had been too busy preparing for the trial in the instant case to complete Sixto's new-trial motion. This led to some blistering remarks by both the prosecutor and Judge Jelletich. [15] (15) The following Monday, Cook moved to be relieved as defendant's counsel. He argued that since the jury was only admonished not to read anything concerning defendant's trial, there was a good chance the jurors were exposed to either the newspaper article or television news accounts of the Sixto incident. Cook argued the article was not entirely accurate and in any case was prejudicial because it could have diminished his credibility with the jury and thus his effectiveness as defendant's advocate. The trial court denied the motion and admonished the jury not to consider the article. Defendant now contends the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to grant the motion to relieve counsel. Ordinarily, ... the determination whether to allow a substitution is ... within the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citations.] ( People v. McKenzie (1983) 34 Cal.3d 616, 629 [194 Cal. Rptr. 462, 668 P.2d 769].) Contrary to defendant's claim, the record fails to reveal the trial court abused its discretion. First, we note the trial court opined that Cook had done an outstanding job in representing defendant and that it would probably redound to defendant's detriment to appoint new counsel at such a late stage in the proceedings. In addition, the judge also decided that although the prosecutor's questioning of defendant's experts regarding their participation in the Sixto case was proper, he would thereafter prohibit that line of questioning. [16] In addition, the trial court offered to admonish the jury if Cook so desired. After a recess, Cook agreed and the court made the following statement: You may or may not recall that on Thursday afternoon during the testimony of Dr. Thompson, reference was made to the โ what is known as the Sixto case, and also, I believe, the Delling case. [ถ] At this time, I admonish you and direct you, instruct you, to disregard testimony with reference to those particular cases. There are facts of those cases which obviously have nothing to do with the facts that we are trying in this proceeding here. Secondly, perhaps more critical, last Saturday of the past weekend, an article appeared in the Bakersfield Californian involving a case is not this case [ sic ]. It involved the case of People versus Sixto, and in that article certain statements were made about defense counsel, in our case, Mr. Cook. If you did not read the article, fine. Do not. If you did, ... I simply want to indicate that as far as I am concerned, both counsel in this case, Mr. Cook and Mr. Leddy, have conducted themselves in a very lawyer-like and businesslike professional manner, and both sides have been very, very well represented in this case. The court closed by reminding the jury of their promise to decide the case based on the evidence introduced in court and not other considerations such as their like or dislike of either attorney. Finally, in conjunction with defendant's postverdict motion for a new trial, the jurors were individually questioned whether they in fact read the article about the Sixto case. Only four jurors said they had read it before deliberating (one said he read it afterwards) and all affirmed that the article played no part in their deliberations. We conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to relieve defense counsel.