Legal Opinion

People v. McKenzie

California Supreme Court

Decided September 8, 1983No. Crim. 22615PublishedCited by 97 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOSK, J.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether reversal is appropriate after defense counsel expressly refuses to actively participate in his client’s trial. Counsel here attempted to justify his action on the ground that certain trial rulings made it impossible for him to effectively represent his client. Although we are extremely reluctant to appear to reward such tactics, we nevertheless conclude that reversal is necessary because, on this record, the defendant was unquestionably deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.

Defendant appeared in municipal court for arraignment…

2Cases cited54 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  4. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932

49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by97 opinions

  1. People v. PriceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. People v. ColeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  3. People v. LangCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  4. People v. PanahCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  5. People v. BloomCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989

92 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API