Mr. Eastman spoke with me after court. Mr. Eastman's reasons for the Marsden motion were "absency and no communication."
His issue wasn't specifically with Mr. Marcus but against all assigned to represent him in the Public Defender office. "Being tossed around between six different attorneys over in a 10 month period" doesn't seem to be enough for a Marsden motion.
The courtroom was opened to set future dates. Trial confirmaton is July 26. Jury trial on August 7.
Off the record while, dates were being assigned, Mr. Marcus apologized to the Judge for being dressed in a business-casual fashion. "I wasn't expecting to come to court today."
Visiting Judge Bob McNatt also asked Mr. Marcus when he took over. Mr. Marcus responded February 27, 2016. "So, you have only been on board a couple of months," said Judge McNatt. Mr. Marcus acknowledged with a yes.
Thanks for the update, what a mixed up situation.
ReplyDeleteAs info:
"Defendants making Marsden Motions are often advised by advocates to create a clear paper trail. This is because the court often gives more credibility to attorneys than to criminal defendants, and a successful Marsden Motion may trigger a state Bar investigation if granted based on ineffective assistance. Aram Byer James, a former public defender and watchdog of abuses by the public defender, who teaches defendants and their families how to file a Marsden Motion, emphasizes creation of a paper trail as essential to the success of the motion prior to trial, or to basing an appeal on the denial of the motion."