Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: suppress evidence in an 11550 case

The reason you had to remain in custody is that your lawyer doesn't get to decide when you're released. That's the judge's call, and there are rules governing how counsel (or defendants in pro per) may ask the judge to make such a decision.

Your lawyer may have had a winning argument about excluding the evidence against you, but he still had to present that argument to the court via a formal written motion. Motions must be made well in advance so that the prosecutor has time to evaluate the argument and prepare an opposition and so that defense counsel can reply to that opposition. The court then needs time to read all of the documents and conduct any research it deems necessary before the hearing.

You ask whether this would have been handled differently "if it were the public defenders office instead of a lawyer". Public defenders *are* lawyers and they must follow the same rules as all other attorneys.

You also ask whether it would make a difference if you had a public defender instead of a court-appointed laywer. When a defendant gets an appointed lawyer instead of a PD it is usually because the PD has a conflict of interest and cannot represent the defendant. This often happens when there are multiple defendants who each need separate representation, or when a witness is being represented by the PD in a different case. In such circumstances getting a PD isn't an option. Heavily-populated counties like Los Angeles have several layers of alternate public defenders (APDs) they can turn to when such conflicts arise; some smaller counties have no such office or just a single APD who can also have conflicts in some cases. When none of these options is available the court will appoint a private attorney at public expense. Since all attorneys are subject to the same rules, there should ne no advantage or disadvantage to having a court-appointed attorney instead of a PD or APD.