U.S. v. HAVENS, 1:10-CR-00247 LJO (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150129d07
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. The Court has received and reviewed the Motions to Withdraw as Counsel of Record in both of the indicated cases. The Court requires a hearing, ex parte as it may need to be, for the following reasons: 1. The negative history of counsel representation in this case; 2. The absence of documented notice to the Defendant himself; 3. The absence of specifics for the reason for the attempted withdrawal after trial dates have been set; 4. When counsel say
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. The Court has received and reviewed the Motions to Withdraw as Counsel of Record in both of the indicated cases. The Court requires a hearing, ex parte as it may need to be, for the following reasons: 1. The negative history of counsel representation in this case; 2. The absence of documented notice to the Defendant himself; 3. The absence of specifics for the reason for the attempted withdrawal after trial dates have been set; 4. When counsel says..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
The Court has received and reviewed the Motions to Withdraw as Counsel of Record in both of the indicated cases. The Court requires a hearing, ex parte as it may need to be, for the following reasons:
1. The negative history of counsel representation in this case;
2. The absence of documented notice to the Defendant himself;
3. The absence of specifics for the reason for the attempted withdrawal after trial dates have been set;
4. When counsel says in the request that "another counsel be appointed," he himself was not appointed, but rather was retained. The retention issue needs to be explored.
The matter is now set for hearing at 11 a.m. on February 9, 2015, and Counsel Foster is to notify his client that he is required to be present.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
