Murder Trial Lawyer Loses Bid to Withdraw Based on Client's 'Unjustified Hostility'
An Appellate Division, First Department panel decided that the trial lawyer had not presented a sufficient reason for removal when the lawyer joined defendant's application for new counsel and “cited only defendant's recent request [for new counsel] and defendant's belligerence in court the preceding day as the basis.”
December 06, 2018 at 12:22 PM
2 minute read
A defense lawyer's request to be removed as counsel to a murder defendant was properly denied by the trial court—even though the defendant himself had requested new counsel—because “no conflict existed other than that created by defendant through his unjustified hostility toward his competent attorney,” a state appeals court has ruled.
An Appellate Division, First Department panel decided Tuesday that the defendant's trial lawyer—unnamed in the opinion—had not presented a sufficient reason for removal when the lawyer joined defendant George Ventura's application for new counsel and “cited only defendant's recent request [for new counsel] and defendant's belligerence in court the preceding day as the basis for his request.”
It did “not amount to an irreconcilable conflict that required counsel to be relieved,” wrote the panel, composed of Justices Rolando Acosta, Dianne Renwick, Angela Mazzarelli, Ellen Gesmer and Anil Singh.
The unanimous justices also ruled that the trial judge, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Ronald Zweibel, had “providently exercised [his] discretion” in denying Ventura's requests for new counsel, which the defendant had made during a suppression hearing and jury selection.
“Regardless of the sufficiency of the first inquiry, the court conducted a thorough inquiry into defendant's second request [for new counsel] and it gave defendant numerous opportunities to elaborate on his conclusory statements that defense counsel was unprepared,” the justices wrote.
But Ventura's “only specific complaints were unfounded,” they said, citing People v. Felder.
The panel's opinion examined other appellate issues, as well, and the panel unanimously affirmed Zweibel's judgement, rendered Aug. 9, 2014, and amended Aug. 12, 2016, convicting Ventura, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 25 years to life and 15 years.
Ventura's appellate lawyer, Siobhan Atkins, with the Center for Appellate Litigation in New York, could not be reached for comment.
The office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., which represented the people via Assistant DA Katherine Kulkarni, declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Judge Rejects Morgan Stanley Reconsideration Bid in Deferred Compensation Litigation
US Bankruptcy Filings Rise 16.2% as Interest Rates, Inflation, and End of COVID Relief Hit Hard
3 minute readTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand & Uncertainty
Judge Orders Rudy Giuliani to Court Amid Allegations He's Hiding Assets Under Receivership
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250