Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A Marsden motion is the only means by which a criminal defendant can fire a court-appointed attorney or communicate directly with a judge in a California state court. [1] It is based on a defendant's claim that the attorney is providing ineffective assistance or has a conflict with the defendant. The name comes from the case People v.
Richard P. Liebowitz, a New York attorney focused on copyrights held by photographers, was disbarred by the state of New York in 2024 following suspension from the practice of law in the Southern District of New York. His disbarment followed what was described as a "pattern and practice of failing to comply with court orders and making false ...
Ineffectiveness claims can be brought by defendants who pled guilty to a plea deal and did so following the bad advice of counsel. Such claims typically arise when the defendant's lawyer fails to inform their client about the "collateral" consequences of their guilty plea. Collateral consequences include the loss of the ability to vote ...
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal of a criminal case because of his belief that any grounds for appeal were frivolous.
Removed from the office of Suffolk County, Massachusetts District Attorney for using his office to aid in blackmail and extortion. [91] Fred Phelps: Kansas: July 20, 1979 — Conduct during his lawsuit against court reporter Carolene Brady. [92] United States federal courts: 1989 (ceased practicing) —
Rhiannon Do worked at the Orange County district attorney's office for three months earlier this year, a spokesperson for the D.A.'s office confirmed to The Times. County officials said Do was not ...
If they can’t do that, their only option may be to step back and let time make people forget." Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni Legal Battle Tarnishes Ryan Reynolds' Hollywood Image: Expert
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.