Opinion ID: 1351343
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ruling of December 10, 1982.

Text: (5) On December 10, 1982, the court heard defendant's motion to reinstate Roth. Defendant consulted with independent counsel, Patrick Mulloy, and submitted a declaration waiving any conflict of interest. [9] He offered to stipulate to any facts the prosecution sought to prove through Roth's testimony. Deputy Public Defender Keller testified that Roth had been assisting him on a pro bono basis throughout the case, and that absent such assistance he did not believe defendant would cooperate with him. Judge Garst denied the motion. Ruling from the bench, he confirmed his position that had he known of the conflict, he would not have appointed Roth in the first place. [10] For the reasons previously stated, the court acted within its discretionary power. The court is not required to appoint counsel with a conflict of interest even if the client is willing to make a voluntary and informed waiver.