Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: Change of Law PC 987 (a)???????????????

The Judge acted within the norm. Now you have to ask yourself a question; are you going to risk a conviction and jail time by using a public defender, or retain a competent private counsel who will fight for you? If you would like a free consulation call my office. My information is listed on this website.

Re: Change of Law PC 987 (a)???????????????

No harm, no foul. Either hire an attorney, ask for the public defender, or represent yourself, but all that the court did so far was enter your not guilty plea, the same as any attorney would do. Contact me if you want counsel.

Re: Change of Law PC 987 (a)???????????????

You get what you pay for. Relying on the public defender, or your supposed "right" to court-appointed counsel, is a great way to acquire a criminal record and do time. Next time bring your own attorney to the arraignment.

Re: Change of Law PC 987 (a)???????????????

The law has not been changed, and the judge acted properly. He didn't ask if you wanted counsel because he presumed that you would; if you don't you can ask to represent yourself later. You need to at least confer with an attorney about the advantages and disadvantages of representing yourself, and you need to be able to tell her the facts of your case. This can't be done in open court, which is why you need to come back later.

You seem to think you should have been given an attorney on the spot, but there are several reasons why doing so is impractical.

The judge can't assign an attorney -- or even give you a chance to talk to one -- on the spot because lawyers need at least a little time to review the case file and meet with the client before representing him in court. Even if attorneys had nothing better to do than hang around in courtrooms in case the court wants to appoint them, it would not be possible for them to just walk up to the podium and start representing the defendant.

Another reason the process takes time is that appointed counsel is only available to defendants who cannot afford to hire a lawyer -- and because the defendant bears the burden of proving his financial status. If courts just took people at their word a lot of defendants who could afford a lawyer would take advantage of the system instead.

A third issue is that the law office (usually the public defender) to which the case is first offered may have a conflict of interests that prevents it from accepting the case. For example, it may already be representing one of the witnesses in your case in a different case where he is the defendant. Another common scenario is that there are two or more defendants and each may need to argue that the others committed the crime. Determining whether a particular office has a conflict takes time, and when there is a conflict the process has to be repeated -- often several times -- with other offices. (Large counties like Los Angeles have several separate public defender offices to deal with such conflicts, but even this is sometimes not enough and a private attorney has to be retained at public expense.) Here again, the process can't be completed quickly and he court can't just presume that the first lawyer it turns to will be able to accept the case.

I hope this explanation has been helpful, and I also hope you aren't planning to represent yourself. Defendants who decide to do so -- even those who are experienced lawyers -- are almost always making a mistake.