Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Ely (D) was indicted along with two other men for distributing and conspiring to distribute cocaine. D was the middleman with Dawson, his supplier, and Griswold, a dealer to whom D supplied. Griswold and Dawson pled guilty and were sentenced to 10 and 15 years respectively. Dawson moved for a reduction in sentence, that motion was denied, and he appealed. D failed to appear in court with the others and became a fugitive. They were eventually caught, and D eventually received a 30-year sentence while the other two got 10 and 15 years. Ely (D) was arraigned on a criminal matter and requested court-appointed counsel. The court appointed Brady. Ely stated, 'Mr. Bartley had represented business of mine at one time, and I have -- I feel a more closer relationship with Mr. Bartley in understanding what is before me. . . .' Although Bartley was willing to accept the appointment and had represented other indigent criminal defendants before the district judge, the judge refused to appoint him to represent Ely: 'the Court appoints an attorney for you under the program that this Court has of attorneys on its list and in some relative degree of sequence and frequency. . . . I know that Mr. Brady is a thoroughly competent and experienced attorney in this Court. I don't have anything different to say about Mr. Bartley, but we cannot start the practice of allowing defendants to select attorneys to be appointed.' The trial judge refused. D appealed. D contends the judge violated his Sixth Amendment rights by denying him his counsel of choice.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co