California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Michaels, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 285, 28 Cal.4th 486, 49 P.3d 1032 (Cal. 2002):
But that does not demonstrate an "irreconcilable conflict" that would require the trial court to replace appointed counsel. Defendant cannot simply refuse to cooperate with his appointed attorney and thereby compel the court to remove that attorney. "`[I]f a defendant's claimed lack of trust in, or inability to get along with, an appointed attorney were sufficient to compel appointment of substitute counsel, defendants effectively would have a veto power over any appointment and by a process of elimination could obtain appointment of their preferred attorneys, which is certainly not the law.'" (People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1070, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40, quoting People v. Crandell, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 860, 251 Cal.Rptr. 227, 760 P.2d 423.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.