Opinion ID: 775273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequacy of Inquiry

Text: 33 Before ruling on a motion to substitute counsel due to an irreconcilable conflict, a district court must conduct such necessary inquiry as might ease the defendant's dissatisfaction, distrust, and concern. United States v. Garcia, 924 F.2d 925, 926 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also Brown v. Craven, 424 F.2d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 1970). The inquiry must also provide a sufficient basis for reaching an informed decision. United States v. McClendon, 782 F.2d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, the district court may need to evaluate the depth of any conflict between defendant and counsel, the extent of any breakdown in communication, how much time may be necessary for a new attorney to prepare, and any delay or inconvenience that may result from substitution. See D'Amore, 56 F.3d at 1205. 34 Adelzo-Gonzalez made three motions to substitute his attorney, six weeks, two weeks, and one day before the scheduled trial date. Each motion was made by written letter on Adelzo-Gonzalez's independent initiative. The district court acknowledged on the record that it received the letters, but the letters do not appear on the docket and were not made part of the record on appeal. The district court did not recite the text of the letters during its inquiry, so the precise content of the letters is not available to this Court. We must rely on the reasons Adelzo-Gonzalez raised before the district court. However, we are able to discern enough from the hearing transcripts to evaluate the first and last motions for substitution of counsel. 2 35 We hold that the district court's inquiries into Adelzo-Gonzalez's first and last motions were inadequate. The district court asked only open-ended questions and put the onus on defendant to articulate why the appointed counsel could not provide competent representation. While open-ended questions are not always inadequate, in most circumstances a court can only ascertain the extent of a breakdown in communication by asking specific and targeted questions. See United States v. Torres-Rodriguez, 930 F.2d 1375, 1381 (9th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S. Ct. 501, 133 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1995). There were compelling reasons here to delve deeper into the nature of Adelzo-Gonzalez's relationship with the appointed counsel. 36 During the district court's inquiry into both the first and last motions, there were clear indications of serious discord and friction between Adelzo-Gonzalez and his attorney. Adelzo-Gonzalez expressly stated that he and the appointed counsel were not getting along, that the appointed counsel did not pay attention to him and had used bad language, and that the appointed counsel had threatened to sink me for 105 years so that I wouldn't be able to see my wife and children. At the hearing on his third motion, Adelzo-Gonzalez emphasized his dissatisfaction with the appointed counsel by stating that he would rather represent himself than continue with the appointed counsel. 37 The appointed counsel's responses during the inquiries were also informative of the nature of his relationship with Adelzo-Gonzalez. He opposed Adelzo-Gonzalez's motions and even went so far as to try to prevent his client from making the motion at the final pretrial hearing. The appointed counsel openly called Adelzo-Gonzalez a liar and suggested that Adelzo-Gonzalez had been coached by someone. The display of antagonism was not limited only to the inquiries. After Adelzo-Gonzalez had expressed some confusion during arraignment on the first superseding indictment, the appointed counsel volunteered to the court that Adelzo-Gonzalez might be feigning ignorance. He opined that Adelzo-Gonzalez did understand the proceeding but that he has been advised by someone, or has his own ideas, and that it's like a computer spins, and the answer comes out again, `I do not understand, I do not understand,' but I feel he does understand. 38 Despite such striking signs of a serious conflict, the district court made no meaningful attempt to probe more deeply into the nature of Adelzo-Gonzalez's relationship with the appointed counsel. The court failed to explore other sources, such as the interpreters, to verify the accusations Adelzo Gonzalez had made against his attorney. The court's questions to both the appointed counsel and Adelzo-Gonzalez focused on counsel's competence and capacity to provide adequate representation. The court's factual findings reflect this misplaced emphasis; it explicitly held in denying both motions that the appointed counsel was competent and fully prepared to provide the necessary quality of representation. There was too much emphasis on the appointed counsel's ability to provide adequate representation and not enough attention to the status and quality of the attorney-client relationship. See Musa, 220 F.3d at 1102 (Even if a defendant's counsel is competent, a serious breakdown in communication can result in an inadequate defense.); D'Amore, 56 F.3d at 1206 ([A] court may not deny a substitution motion simply because it thinks current counsel's representation is adequate.). 3 39 The perfunctory inquiries did not provide the district court a sufficient basis to determine the extent of the breakdown in communication. See Moore, 159 F.3d at 1160 (The court did give both parties a chance to speak and made limited inquiries to clarify what was said. However, the court made no inquiries to help it understand the extent of the breakdown.). We conclude that the district court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into either Adelzo-Gonzalez's first or last motions to substitute his attorney.