X hits on this document





65 / 115

“The Court:  For what purpose?  Why?

“Mr. Gerstein:  Well, apparently because of—as I understood it, your Honor, because of your concern that they were not making any presentation of evidence or argument at the penalty phase in this matter.

“The Court:  And what is—well, why are you here now?

“Mr. Gerstein:  Because they felt that that put them into a, at least awkward, an awkward situation to make the argument for their—

“The Court:  They stated that they had no argument.

“Mr. Gerstein:  No.  I’m sorry, your Honor, their argument that they should continue to represent Mr. Snow and that it would be an interference with his right to counsel to have someone else now appointed by you to carry on with the penalty phase.  That argument, your Honor.

“The Court:  Well, all that’s left is the arguments.

“Mr. Gerstein:  Yes.

“The Court:  Because there was no presentation of factors in mitigation.

“Mr. Gerstein:  Yes, I understand that.

“The Court:  I’ve cited the Deere case on the record.[24]

“Mr. Gerstein:  Yes.

“The Court:  That requires them, as officers of the court, to present factors in mitigation, if any.

“The Court [sic: Mr. Gerstein]:  Well, yes, your Honor.  That was precisely their—that was precisely their concern.

“They have shared with me some of the confidential material on the basis of which they have made their considered judgment that, in the interest—in Mr. Snow’s interest, that they should not present any evidence, your Honor.

24 The court had earlier referred counsel to People v. Deere (1985) 41 Cal.3d 353.

Document info
Document views168
Page views168
Page last viewedSat Oct 22 00:29:41 UTC 2016