Opinion ID: 1465457
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Request for Trial Continuance and Appointment of New Counsel.

Text: Nickerson also argues that his trial should have been continued and that the court should have appointed new counsel for him once Kaufman's ethical violation was discovered. The request for new counsel can best be analyzed as the denial of a continuance or the denial of a motion to substitute counsel. Nguyen, 262 F.3d at 1001. Generally, district judges have broad latitude to deny a motion for substitution of counsel on the eve of trial when the request would require a continuance. United States v. Castro, 972 F.2d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir.1992) ( overruled on other grounds by United States v. Recio, 537 U.S. 270, 123 S.Ct. 819, 154 L.Ed.2d 744 (2003)). However, this discretion must be balanced against the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Nguyen, 262 F.3d at 1003. Nickerson requested a new attorney after Kaufman's violation was made known to the court and Hazel's subpoena was quashed. Although Nickerson eventually changed his mind and proceeded to trial after repeatedly affirming his choice to have Kaufman continue to represent him, Nickerson now argues that [h]e did not knowingly waive his right to a newly appointed attorney because he was not provided independent advice from an attorney who was not compromised before the District Court. Nickerson's concern with Kaufman's representation stemmed from his desire to have Hazel testify on his behalf. After Judge Molloy explained to Nickerson that Hazel would not have testified even if Kaufman had not spoken to him, Nickerson maintained his request for a new attorney. The district court judge then allowed a short recess so Nickerson could speak with his attorney. When they returned on the record, Kaufman informed the district court that Damien [Nickerson] was getting very mixed signals and now, [after] the final conversation we've had, the father understands that the lawyer he's been speaking to has only received piecemeal information and that it would be in Damien's best interest to proceed. Damien feels comfortable with that decision. I believe we are ready to proceed. Judge Molloy then asked Nickerson in at least seven different ways whether he wanted to go forward with Kaufman as his attorney, and Nickerson answered each inquiry affirmatively. The record demonstrates that Judge Molloy adequately explained the situation and allowed Nickerson to make the final decision whether to proceed. Nguyen, 262 F.3d at 1002 ([T]his Court affirms the denial of a continuance only if the district court displays adequate care and concern for the defendant's rights.). Judge Molloy offered a continuance twice, and made it clear to Nickerson that going forward with the trial was his choice and that no one was pressuring him to proceed to trial. Unlike in Nguyen and Castro, where the defendants went into trial requesting a different attorney, Nickerson went into trial affirming his decision to continue to be represented by Kaufman. Nickerson has not produced any evidence that his decision was not knowing, as he alleges. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to grant a continuance or appoint new counsel.