Court Opinion

ID: 9858367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:21:06.350301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:01.296817
License: Public Domain

Roberds, P. J.,
specially concurring:
I concur in the opinion in chief in this case only because, after viewing and evaluating in retrospect, all *221circumstances in the case, I think appellant did not have a fair trial. But I do not undertake to attach blame to any one of counsel appointed to defend appellant. Especially does it appear to me that the learned trial judge was free from any and all blame or error. Appointment of counsel to defend accused persons involves consideration of a number of factors. The compensation is nominal and experienced attorneys naturally act reluctantly. Intense public sentiment against defendant may exist, carrying in the public mind some condemnation of the attorney representing him. In this case it is apparent no counsel at the local bar wanted the task of representing defendant, and it is easily conceivable that good judgment by the trial judge might suggest to him the appointment of the entire bar. He did name and specify as chief counsel and special assistant two of the number he had appointed, thereby placing special responsibility on those two attorneys, and thereby complying, in substance at least, with the requirements of the statute.