Opinion ID: 588600
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Continuance to Select Counsel of Choice

Text: 29 On the first day of trial, prior to jury selection, defendant requested a continuance so that he could hire an attorney of his own choosing, rather than continue to use a court-appointed one. The court denied this request. 30 The right to assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment includes the right to counsel of one's own choosing if a defendant is financially able to retain counsel. United States v. Johnston, 318 F.2d 288, 291 (6th Cir.1963). This right, however, is not absolute in that it must be balanced against the court's authority to control its own docket. Lockett v. Arn, 740 F.2d 407, 413 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1019 (1984). 31 Because defendant had three months prior to trial to obtain counsel of his choice, and in view of his claim of indigency, the timing of his request for a continuance raises the suspicion that it was merely a delaying tactic. See United States v. Fowler, 605 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 950 (1980) (The right to assistance of counsel ... may not be put to service as a means of delaying or trifling with the court.). Nothing in the record explains why he waited until the trial was to begin to decide to hire an attorney. Under the circumstances, we are unable to say that the denial of the continuance was an abuse of discretion.