X hits on this document





103 / 115

before the trial court when it accepted counsel’s waiver of argument—supports such an assumption.  

The possibility defendant wished to waive argument certainly occurred to the court, which directly asked lead counsel if that were the case:

“The Court:  . . . Mr. Miller, is this pursuant to the wishes of the defendant?

“Mr. Miller:  Your Honor, I’m in no position to answer the court’s question.”

Having received this unhelpful response, the trial court turned to defendant:

“The Court:  . . . I want you to be aware, if you want someone to argue in your behalf, I will gladly appoint another lawyer and to have him review this case for purposes of arguments. . . .  There are so many aspects to factors in mitigation as to your case.  You understand this Mr. Snow?

“The Defendant:  Yes.

The Court:  Do you wish the court to appoint another lawyer in your behalf?

The Defendant:  Yes.

The Court:  Thank you.  This will be for the purposes of the arguments in this case.  Do you understand this?

The Defendant:  (Defendant nods head in the affirmative.)”33  (Italics added.)

With the question of defendant’s wishes thus resolved, the court prepared to obtain new counsel, asking its clerk to contact an attorney, Mort Borenstein, known to the court as resourceful and competent.  The court’s subsequent

33The trial court may have gone beyond its duties in inquiring of defendant whether he wanted new counsel to argue for him.  That does not affect the court’s duty, once it learned defendant in fact did wish to have counsel argue, to appoint such counsel.

Document info
Document views502
Page views502
Page last viewedWed Jan 18 04:37:33 UTC 2017