On May 8, 1:59 pm, Larry y.com> wrote:
> In article
> theget bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>> On May 8, 10:57 am, David Johnston block.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:46:16 -0700 (PDT), theget
>>> The judge does actually have the power to compell a lawyer who happens
>>> to be handy to take a case to ensure that the accused has
>> They certainly have that power, but the question is how would they
>> exercise that power in real life? Would they really choose a
>> prosecutor for that role? And what might an appeals court say about
>> it? Particularly in a murder case.
> Note - I didn't see the episode in question.
> However, IRL, if there's a case where a defendant needs a lawyer, and
> the judge sees an 18-B lawyer in the audience (18-B is the provision of
> law that provides private lawyers at the public's expense for defendants
> who can't afford their own), the judge will often ask the lawyer if they
> are willing to take the case. Almost always they do, but if they can't
> (a big trial coming up, a vacation, etc.) I've never seen a judge force
> them to. Instead, the case is adjourned, and there is a panel that will
> randomly assign an 18-B lawyer to the defendant.
Thanks for that.
Are there limits to how long someone can be held between areest and
arraigment? And also between arraignment and trial? Pesky speedy
> A current, active prosecutor would NEVER be assigned to defend someone.
Yeah, that was a bit of a stretch, particularly since she had been
working on the case.
> Besides the conflict of interest, the prosecutor kinda has a full time
> job, no?
Ok, that's just too tempting for me to let it just pass by. ;)
So the lawyers full time job trumps the right of the defendant to
counsel? I wonder if I can use the analogous argument for the
defendants right to a jury next time I'm called for jury duty?
Yeah, yeah, I know they ask that already on the form...
Here's your fun link for this post,
"Since 2000, patent judges have been appointed by a government
official without the constitutional power to do so."