People v. Jordan

1 Citing case

  1. People v. Medina

    44 N.Y.2d 199 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 294 times
    In Medina, however, we articulated two clear-cut instances in which a trial court's failure to find good cause for substitution would amount to an abuse of discretion: first, when an attorney is assigned to represent two defendants between whom there is a conflict of interest and second, when the defense counsel has "not adequately investigated his client's history of mental disorder" (id. at 208).

    However, this is far from suggesting that an indigent's request that a court assign new counsel is to be granted casually (People v Brabson, 9 N.Y.2d 173, cert den 369 U.S. 879; People v Yates, 45 A.D.2d 778). For, among other things, practical constraints on the administration of a program for providing legal assistance dictate that "as long as assigned counsel are men of ability and integrity, the discretion and responsibility for their selection rest with the court" (People v Brabson, supra, p 181; see, also, People v Jordan, 49 A.D.2d 660, 661). But this does not gainsay the fact that where "good cause" does exist a court is well advised to effect a change of counsel (e.g., United States v Burkeen, 355 F.2d 241, 245, cert den sub nom.