Court Opinion

ID: 9720544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:34:50.079021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:19.397270
License: Public Domain

KAUS, P. J.
I reluctantly concur. While I do not agree with all the alleged deficiencies in the trial court procedures relating to the appointment and relief of counsel and the ultimate decision to permit defendant to represent himself, it does seem to me that the trial court erred somewhere along the line. If I had to put my finger on the turning point, it came on October 22, 1976, when defendant announced, “I cannot and do not accept Public Defender as counsel. . . .” When the court failed to initiate a Marsden type of inquiry at that point, the game was pretty well lost.
I purposely refer to, the proceedings as a “game” because I am riot blind to what is going on: defendants are manipulating the system to their advantage, basing various ploys and gambits on real or imagined contradictions in applicable Supreme Court opinions. The Stephen Potter who can write a manual to counter all these moves has not yet appeared on the scene.
Finally, even if CALJIC No. 4.31 is not fatally defective, it is confusing and contradictory and should not be given to the jury on a retrial of this case.
Ashby, J., concurred.