Free Newsletter
Right to Counsel – Substitute Counsel
hannahhoffman//May 5, 2014
Appellant challenged his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by refusing to appoint substitute counsel without first determining whether exceptional circumstances existed. The Court of Appeals held that because appellant had not alleged or demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying substitution of counsel, the District Court did not misstate the law as it applied to appellant’s request. Affirmed.
A13-1181 State v. Hernandez (Polk County)
Top News
- Melodie Rose named president at Fredrikson
- Supreme Court lawyers have rituals of their own
- Minnesota artists consider what’s next in AI copyrights
- Defining ‘and’ in sentencing statute falls to Supreme Court
- Hashtag rates higher libel protection
- Court: Performance issues, not bias, prompted union to fire organizer
- Robot milker case yields $122M
- 2023 Up & Coming Attorneys
Expert Testimony
- Briefly: A chat with Supreme Court Commissioner Tim Droske
- Perspectives: Oral arguments at high court stir lively debates
- Quandaries & Quagmires: Advance waivers: Lessons from Paul Hastings vs. Coca Cola
- Perspectives: Recent cellphone ruling recalls high court cases
