Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS

December 4, 1990

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
HENRY ANDREWS and JEROME CROWDER, Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: ASPEN

 MARVIN E. ASPEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Defendants Henry Andrews and Jerome Crowder have filed motions for substitution of counsel. *fn1" For the reasons discussed below, these motions are denied.

 Discussion

 It is well established that "an indigent criminal defendant has an absolute right to be represented by counsel, but he does not have the right to have a particular lawyer represent him, . . . nor to demand a different appointed lawyer except for good cause." Thomas v. Wainwright, 767 F.2d 738, 742 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 103 S. Ct. 1610, 75 L. Ed. 2d 610 (1983)), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1031, 106 S. Ct. 1241, 89 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1986); see also United States v. Allen, 789 F.2d 90, 92 (1st Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 846, 107 S. Ct. 164, 93 L. Ed. 2d 103 (1986). In the Seventh Circuit, "a motion for substitution of counsel is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion, provided that the defendant has been given an opportunity to explain the reasons for his request." United States v. Horton, 845 F.2d 1414, 1417 (7th Cir. 1988). A district court need not grant such a motion unless "there exists a demonstrable conflict of interest or if counsel and defendant are so at odds as to prevent presentation of an adequate defense." United States v. Hillsberg, 812 F.2d 328, 333 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1041, 107 S. Ct. 1981, 95 L. Ed. 2d 821 (1987); see also United States v. Whaley, 788 F.2d 581, 583 (9th Cir.) (similar test), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 962, 107 S. Ct. 458, 93 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1986); United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 108 (4th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1211, 108 S. Ct. 2858, 101 L. Ed. 2d 895 (1988); Allen, 789 F.2d at 92 (same).

 Under these circumstances, neither defendant is entitled to a new attorney. Disagreements over trial strategy and a tempestuous relationship do not amount to a conflict necessitating substitution. Hillsberg, 812 F.2d at 333-34 (denial of substitution motion need not be granted "where defendant and counsel have personality conflicts and disagreements over trial strategy"); cf. United States v. Morris, 714 F.2d 669, 673 (7th Cir. 1983) (upholding denial of motion for substitution that alleged only "ethereal distrust" of counsel); Wainwright, 767 F.2d at 742 ("defendant's general loss of confidence or trust in his counsel, standing alone, is not sufficient").

 Conclusion

 For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motions for substitution are denied. Both defendants are represented by talented and able attorneys, each of whom will certainly present a zealous and adequate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.