Rahhal v. State
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHallows, C. J.
Eahhal claims he was denied his constitutional right to assistance of counsel for his defense and therefore his conviction should be reversed. It is argued that an indigent has a constitutional right to pick his own counsel at public expense. Rahhal relies on Crooker v. California (1958), 357 U. S. 433, 78 Sup. Ct. 1287, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1448, and Chandler v. Fretag (1954), 348 U. S. 3, 75 Sup. Ct. 1, 99 L. Ed. 4. He claims Mr. Steininger was not of his choosing, but as we read the record this claim has no basis in fact. While Rahhal contends he only wanted to hire Mr. Steininger to represent him…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Parker v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Crooker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Chandler v. Warden FretagSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Hayes v. StatesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- Henry v. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Pickens v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- Drumgo v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Fowlkes v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1988
- State v. HamptonWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. ShearsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.