X hits on this document

447 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

113 / 115

penalty phase argument where that waiver is contrary to the defendant’s expressed wishes and is unaccompanied by any explanation from counsel.  The majority’s contrary holding—that the court may accept counsel’s waiver without any explanation and contrary to defendant’s expressed wishes—seems to suggest that trial courts may turn a blind eye to an apparent abandonment of the client by appointed counsel in even the most serious of criminal cases.  The possibility that attorneys Miller and Maple will, in a habeas corpus proceeding years from now, come up with a post hoc explanation for their actions—an explanation they would not provide the trial court even in chambers and without the prosecutor present, and which consequently would be of doubtful reliability—does not justify a holding that so undermines the appearance of justice in capital cases.

WERDEGAR, J.

WE CONCUR:

GEORGE, C. J.

MORENO, J.

Document info
Document views447
Page views447
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 00:39:32 UTC 2016
Pages115
Paragraphs595
Words35484

Comments