These two appeals arise out of the pending death penalty prosecution of Aundra Dermaine Grant. For the reasons set out below, we conclude that the trial court erred by removing Grant’s existing co-counsel, and we reverse the trial court’s order imposing contempt sanctions on Grant’s lead counsel. 1. After a number of changes in defense counsel in Grant’s case, Matthew Rubenstein ultimately was appointed by the trial court as Grant’s lead counsel. It was never disputed, either by the State or the trial court, that Rubenstein was well-qualified and had an excellent working relationship with Grant. Cynthia Roseberry and Gary Parker worked as Grant’s co-counsel with Rubenstein without compensation from the trial court or the county during a several-month interval when there was no court appointed co-counsel, and they agreed to continue in that capacity through Grant’s trial. Just as with Rubenstein, it was never disputed that Roseberry and Parker were well-qualified and had an extensive, positive working relationship with Grant. Nevertheless, a conflict with the trial court developed when the trial court attempted to impose unfamiliar co-counsel on Grant and to forbid Roseberry and Parker from continuing to serve as co-counsel.
This Court has previously addressed the limits of the trial court’s discretion in selecting defense counsel for indigent death penalty defendants. In Amadeo v. State , the defendant was again facing a possible death sentence after his first conviction and death sentence had been reversed by the federal courts on habeas corpus.1 We concluded that the trial court, on retrial of the case, abused its discretion by failing to give sufficient weight to the defendant’s “relationship of trust and confidence with prior counsel” and to prior counsel’s familiarity with the “legal and factual complexities of the case.”2 Accordingly we concluded that the trial court erred by appointing new counsel over the defendant’s objections.3 Later, in Davis v. State , this Court reiterated the rule applied in Amadeo as follows: When a defendant’s choice of counsel is supported by objective considerations favoring the appointment of the preferred counsel, and there are no countervailing considerations of comparable weight, it is an abuse of discretion to deny the defendant’s request to appoint the counsel of his preference.4 Applying that rule, we concluded that the trial court had failed to give sufficient weight to the fact that the lawyers who had previously represented Davis were “already familiar with the case, which was both legally and factually complex,” and the fact that they had formed a close working relationship with the defendant.5
