The differentiating factor between de jure segregation and so-called de facto segregation . . . is purpose or intent to segregate. Keyes v. Denver School District, 413 U.S. 189, 208 (1973) (emphasis by Court). See also Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 457 n.5 (1979).
| General Legal Sites | Constitutional Law | Statutory Law | Case Law | Administrative Law |
Free Legal Research WA State Legal Resources WA StateLegal Resources | Constitution of the Constitution of the United States WA State Constitution
| United States Code Revised Code of Washington Search the RCW WA State City/ | U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court | Code of Federal Regulations WA Administrative Code |
Code of Washington - FindLaw's hosted version of the Revised Code of Washington.
Washington Constitution - The constitution of the state of Washington.
Washington State Legislature - The official website of the Washington State Legislature.
Washington Administrative Code - The Administrative Code of Washington.
U.S. 9th Cir. Opinions - FindLaw cases and resources for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) Opinions - Opinions and resources from the court.
State Court Opinions
Washington Court of Appeals Opinions - FindLaw cases for the Court of Appeals of Wasington.
Washington Supreme Court Opinions - FindLaw cases for the Supreme Court of Washington.
Defendant’s Request to Remo
Although a defendant does not have the right to appointed counsel of his or her choice, the court must engage in an adequate inquiry into a defendant’s request for the replacement of appointed counsel. The court must appoint different counsel if continued representation by original counsel would result in ineffective assistance of counsel, involve a conflict of interest, or otherwise violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. State v. Glenn, 221 N.C. App. 143 (2012) (general dissatisfaction or disagreement over trial tactics insufficient basis to appoint new counsel); State v. Hutchins, 303 N.C. 321, 335 (1981) (“In the absence of any substantial reason for the appointment of replacement counsel, an indigent defendant must accept counsel appointed by the court, unless he wishes to present his own defense.”); see also State v. Williams, 363 N.C. 689 (2009) (defendant only expressed uncertainty to trial judge about why attorney who had previously withdrawn from case had been reappointed and did not make request for substitute counsel; trial judge therefore was not required to hold hearing on removal).
Defense Counsel Request to Withdraw
Possible grounds for a defense attorney’s request to withdraw are many and varied, and are not reviewed here. See, e.g., G.S. 15A-144 (counsel may move to withdraw for good cause). Ordinarily, it will be sufficient if defense counsel indicates to the court the general basis for moving to withdraw, and it is for grounds other than to cause undue delay in the proceedings. A trial court may hold an in camera hearing if necessary to inquire further. See Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 487 & n.11 (1978); State v. Yelton, 87 N.C. App. 554, 557 (1987).
Removal by the Court for Cause
In limited circumstances—for example, because of a significant conflict of interest—a court may remove retained or appointed counsel even over the client’s objection. See Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (court may override waiver of conflict of interest and replace counsel preferred by defendant); State v. Rogers, 219 N.C. App. 296 (2012) (court could remove defendant’s retained counsel based on serious potential for conflict of interest even if conflict never materialized).
Removal at the Request of the Prosecutor
A prosecutor may also move to disqualify counsel for the defense if there are legitimate grounds for the motion. See State v. Yelton, 87 N.C. App. 554, 556–57 (1987) (state filed motion alleging conflict of interest where one attorney represented two co-defendants – court held that “in effect, the State merely brings the conflict issue to the court's attention” and although such issues are usually raised by the defendant, “there is no reason why the State may not also raise the question before trial”).
.png)