We review a district court's decision to proceed with a trial outside of a defendant's presence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gillam, 629 N.W.2d 440, 450 (Minn. 2001). To determine whether that occurred here, we turn to United States and Minnesota precedent for guidance.
See, e.g., Resp't's App. at 86-89; see also Resp't's App. at 72. He also cited to State v. Gillam, 629 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 2001), which discussed standards for appointment of substitute counsel under state law and Eighth Circuit precedent in the context of a Sixth-Amendment challenge. Resp't's App. at 86; see also Resp't's App. at 72.
"[E]xceptional circumstances are those that affect a court-appointed attorney's ability or competence to represent the client." State v. Gillam, 629 N.W.2d 440, 449 (Minn. 2001). "The decision to appoint a substitute attorney is within the discretion of the district court."
Appellate courts review a district court's decision to proceed with a trial in absentia for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gillam, 629 N.W.2d 440, 450 (Minn. 2001).
Exceptional circumstances refer to the appointed counsel's "ability or competence to represent the client." State v. Gillam, 629 N.W.2d 440, 449 (Minn. 2001). The supreme court has stated that when a defendant raises "serious allegations of inadequate representation before trial has commenced," the district court should conduct a "searching inquiry" before ruling on the request for substitute counsel. State v. Clark, 722 N.W.2d 460, 464 (Minn. 2006)
First, like the defendants in Krejci and Worthy, Nelson did not have good cause to discharge his public defender, and did not have a right to a different public defender without good cause. See Worthy, 583 N.W.2d at 278; see also State v. Gillam, 629 N.W.2d 440, 449 (Minn. 2001) ("[T]he right of an indigent to have counsel does not give him the unbridled right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing." (quotation omitted)).
This court reviews a district court's decision whether to appoint substitute counsel for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gilliam, 629 N.W.2d 440, 449 (Minn. 2001). Defendants in criminal trials have a constitutional right to counsel.
See generallyAllen, 397 U.S. at 351, 90 S.Ct. at 1064 (Brennan, J., concurring) (stating that “when a defendant is excluded from his trial, the court should make reasonable efforts to enable him to communicate with his attorney and, if possible, to keep apprised of the progress of his trial ... it is not weakness to mitigate the disadvantages of his expulsion as far as technologically possible in the circumstances”).See alsoState v. Gillam, 629 N.W.2d 440, 451 (Minn.2001) (trial court properly removed disruptive defendant from the courtroom on three separate occasions, and ultimately allowed the defendant to listen to the proceedings via speakerphone); United States v. Ives, 504 F.2d 935, 938 (9th Cir.1974), vacated on other grounds, 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975), opinion reinstated in relevant part, 547 F.2d 1100 (1976) (trial court properly removed continually disruptive and violent defendant from the courtroom, but ordered the installation of special equipment in defendant's jail cell that allowed him to hear the proceedings and to communicate with his counsel during the trial); United States v. Munn, 507 F.2d 563, 567 (10th Cir.1974) (trial court acted properly by allowing defendant, who was temporarily removed from the courtroom, to hear the proceedings through a broadcast system). Nevertheless, Appellant is correct in pointing out that under Allen, a defendant must be given the opportunity to return to the courtroom upon demon
"The decision to appoint a substitute attorney is within the discretion of the district court." State v. Gillam, 629 N.W.2d 440, 449 (Minn. 2001). Although it is unclear which statements by the district court Parks interprets as a disclaimer of its authority to grant his request, the district court stated that it believed Parks's then-current attorney was adequate.
A district court's decision to conduct a trial in absentia is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. Gillam, 629 N.W.2d 440, 450 (Minn. 2001). An error in continuing a trial in the defendant's absence "is not a structural error, but is an error that is subject to a harmless error analysis."