United States v. Rogers

6 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Bassett

    632 F. Supp. 1308 (D. Md. 1986)   Cited 12 times
    Finding attorneys' fees exempt from the forfeiture provisions of § 853

    The government agrees that "[a] defendant is entitled only to counsel of choice whom he can afford." Justice Department Guidelines, 38 Cr.L. at 3002, citing United States v. Rogers, 471 F. Supp. 847, 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1979). Consequently, the government contends that "the qualified right to counsel of choice . . . (does not include) the right to use the proceeds of criminal activity to obtain counsel to defend against charges arising from that very criminal activity."

  2. S.S. v. Wakefield

    764 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1988)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that an asserted impropriety of a judge's engaging in an ex parte communication with a party regarding the effectiveness of the party's court-appointed attorney is not an adequate substitute for a legally sufficient statement of facts regarding bias or prejudice

    Since S.S.'s attorney was court-appointed, the judge, especially in light of the seriousness of the proceeding, had an obligation to ensure that the mother would be receiving effective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rogers, 471 F. Supp. 847 (E.D.N.Y.) (trial court's disqualification of defense attorney due to his lack of preparation upheld by appellate court), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Raife, 607 F.2d 1000 (2d Cir. 1979) (decision without published opinion); Baylor v. United States, 360 A.2d 42 (D.C. 1976) (trial judge's disqualification not required because judge was ensuring effective assistance of counsel by informing defense counsel that counsel was too inexperienced to try a first degree murder case), cert. denied 429 U.S. 1024 (1976). Although the judge should not have initiated an ex parte communication with S.S. for the purpose of communicating his concerns over the effectiveness of her court-appointed attorney, the record is barren of any facts from which it might reasonably be inferred that the judge harbored a personal bias, whether actual or apparent, against S.S.'s attorney.

  3. State v. Pacheco

    115 N.M. 325 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 6 times

    Since the right to be represented in a criminal case is of constitutional dimension, United States v. Mendoza-Salgado, 964 F.2d 993, 1015 (10th Cir. 1992), prior to disqualifying an attorney, the trial court must balance a defendant's interest in being represented by counsel of his choosing, the public interest in the effective administration of justice, and the basic concepts of fundamental fairness. See United States v. Agosto, 675 F.2d 965, 970 (8th Cir. 1982), modified on other grounds by Flanagan, 465 U.S. 259, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 79 L.Ed.2d 288; United States v. Rogers, 471 F. Supp. 847, 853 (E.D.N.Y. 1979); People v. Brady, 275 Cal.App.2d 984, 80 Cal.Rptr. 418, 423 (1969). In the instant case, the order of disqualification which is challenged on appeal does not constitute a final appealable order, nor does it satisfy the criteria of a valid interlocutory appeal, and Defendant did not seek to test the propriety of the trial court's order by applying for an extraordinary writ or writ of error.

  4. People v. Boles

    127 Mich. App. 759 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 8 times
    In Boles, this Court held that it was not error for a trial court to refuse to instruct on assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder as a lesser included offense of second-degree murder where there was evidence that the deceased died as a result of traumatic injury and that the defendant inflicted it.

    Sielaff, supra, p 454. In this respect, the case resembles that of United States v Rogers, 471 F. Supp. 847 (ED NY, 1979), in which, aside from an obvious hearing impairment, counsel failed to pursue discovery, failed to move for a bill of particulars, exhibited a general lack of preparation for trial, and failed to abide by rulings of the trial court. One case in which an ineffective assistance of counsel claim was based entirely on a claim that counsel could not hear properly is People v Bell, 95 Ill. App.3d 803; 420 N.E.2d 497 (1981).

  5. People v. Claudio

    85 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)   Cited 25 times

    A well-placed admonition to counsel might be sufficient, whether before or during trial. In an extreme case of incompetence, the court may even go so far as to disqualify an attorney from further representation (see United States v Rogers, 471 F. Supp. 847, affd sub nom. United States v Raife, 607 F.2d 1000). However, in a case such as this case, where the alleged incompetence occurred at a time where there was no opportunity or possibility of contemporaneous judicial intervention, the courts will not look back in an attempt to measure the competency of the advice given to an uncharged suspect by his retained counsel.

  6. People v. Bell

    420 N.E.2d 497 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    See People v. Foster (1979), 76 Ill.2d 365, 374, 392 N.E.2d 6, and People v. Baptist (1979), 76 Ill.2d 19, 27-28, 389 N.E.2d 1200. Defendant relies on United States v. Rogers (E.D.N.Y. 1979), 471 F. Supp. 847, where an 84-year-old defense attorney's hearing problems were among many factors which led to his disqualification. Those factors included his failure to pursue needed discovery, failure timely to move for a bill of particulars, severance, and change of venue; his lack of preparation for witness examination; and his failure to abide by rulings of the court.