Courts Cannot Arbitrarily Interfere with the Attorney-Client Relationship

04/03/13

On Tuesday, in a matter before the New York State Court of Appeals, the court ruled that a judge had erred in changing legal counsel without consulting the defendant in a robbery case.

The appeals court observed pungently, “While the right to counsel of choice is qualified, and may cede … to concerns of the efficient administration of the criminal justice system, we have made clear that courts cannot arbitrarily interfere with the attorney-client relationship.”

In the instant case of People v. Anthony Griffin the defendant was arraigned on charges of robbery and attempted robbery in 2006. The case was adjourned multiple times and at least 10 different assistant prosecutors were assigned to the case. Griffin was represented by David Cohen who at the time was working for Legal Aid.

However, during July 2006, Cohen asked for an adjournment on the ground that he was leaving Legal Aid, and he needed time to brief Griffin’s new attorney. A Legal Aid supervisor at the hearing told the court that without an adjournment Legal Aid cannot continue in the case and would have to be relieved since two weeks was insufficient to prepare for representing a matter where the defendant was facing life in prison.

However, the judge refused Legal Aid’s request, criticized Legal Aid’s turnover rate and suggested that the organization should assign two lawyers on every case. After her show of wisdom, the judge relieved Legal Aid and assigned a court-appointed attorney on her own.

The defendant, Griffin, was never consulted, and within two weeks of this change of counsel at the sweet will of the court, Griffin pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and attempted robbery before a different judge, who was unaware of the circumstances of the change of counsel. Griffin was sentence to 20 years to life.

Within a short period of time, Griffin filed a motion asking to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that it was induced and blamed the court for favoring prosecutors.

In 2011, the Appellate Division, First Department, agreed with Griffin’s submission and overturned his conviction. The Appellate Division also observed that the lower court judge in Griffin’s matter had provided several adjournments to prosecutors without much ado, but did not behave similarly with the defense.

On Tuesday, the New York State Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department and held that removing Legal Aid from the matter, under the circumstances, was an abuse of judicial discretion.