right to reasonably necessary defense in California

2023Analysis “ ‘[T]he right to counsel guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus also includes the right to reasonably necessary defense services. [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 732 ; see also People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 630 .) “But ‘the right to ancillary services arises only when a defendant demonstrates such funds are “reasonably necessary” for his or her defense by reference to the general lines of inquiry that he or she wishes to pursue.’ ” (People v. Clark, sup

2023Analysis “ ‘[T]he right to counsel guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus also includes the right to reasonably necessary defense services. [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 732 ; see also People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 630 .) “But ‘the right to ancillary services arises only when a defendant demonstrates such funds are “reasonably necessary” for his or her defense by reference to the general lines of inquiry that he or she wishes to pursue.’ ” (People v. Clark, sup

2023Analysis “ ‘[T]he right to counsel guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus also includes the right to reasonably necessary defense services. [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 732 ; see also People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 630 .) “But ‘the right to ancillary services arises only when a defendant demonstrates such funds are “reasonably necessary” for his or her defense by reference to the general lines of inquiry that he or she wishes to pursue.’ ” (People v. Clark, sup

2023Analysis “ ‘[T]he right to counsel guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus also includes the right to reasonably necessary defense services. [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 732 ; see also People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 630 .) “But ‘the right to ancillary services arises only when a defendant demonstrates such funds are “reasonably necessary” for his or her defense by reference to the general lines of inquiry that he or she wishes to pursue.’ ” (People v. Clark, sup

2020Analysis A defendant’s constitutional right to counsel “ ‘includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus also includes the right to reasonably necessary defense services.’ ” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 732 (Blair), overruled on another ground in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 .) This does not mean, however, that inmates have an “abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, [and] an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison’s law library or legal assistance program is s

2020Analysis A defendant’s constitutional right to counsel “ ‘includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus also includes the right to reasonably necessary defense services.’ ” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 732 (Blair), overruled on another ground in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 .) This does not mean, however, that inmates have an “abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, [and] an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison’s law library or legal assistance program is s

2013The right to reasonably necessary ancillary defense services and the lawyer-client privilege Several interrelated doctrines ensure that a defendant in a criminal case or a minor subject to a juvenile wardship petition has the right not only to counsel but also to necessary ancillary defense services and that communications with both counsel and any experts engaged to assist counsel will remain protected from disclosure. 5 First, “ ‘[t]he right to counsel guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus al

2013The right to reasonably necessary ancillary defense services and the lawyer-client privilege Several interrelated doctrines ensure that a defendant in a criminal case or a minor subject to a juvenile wardship petition has the right not only to counsel but also to necessary ancillary defense services and that communications with both counsel and any experts engaged to assist counsel will remain protected from disclosure. 5 First, “ ‘[t]he right to counsel guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus al

2019(See People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 , 630, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 407 , 372 P.3d 811 [federal and state Constitutional right to counsel includes the right to effective counsel which, in turn, includes the right to reasonably necessary defense services]; People v. Faxel (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 327 , 330, 154 Cal.Rptr. 132 ["[t]he due process right of effective counsel includes the right to ancillary services necessary in the preparation of a defense"].) To be sure, "[n]ecessary expenses for a criminal defense can include discovery costs , investigative costs, transcript costs, expert fees, etc." (

2019(See People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 , 630, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 407 , 372 P.3d 811 [federal and state Constitutional right to counsel includes the right to effective counsel which, in turn, includes the right to reasonably necessary defense services]; People v. Faxel (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 327 , 330, 154 Cal.Rptr. 132 ["[t]he due process right of effective counsel includes the right to ancillary services necessary in the preparation of a defense"].) To be sure, "[n]ecessary expenses for a criminal defense can include discovery costs , investigative costs, transcript costs, expert fees, etc." (

2023Analysis “ ‘[T]he right to counsel guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus also includes the right to reasonably necessary defense services. [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 732 ; see also People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 630 .) “But ‘the right to ancillary services arises only when a defendant demonstrates such funds are “reasonably necessary” for his or her defense by reference to the general lines of inquiry that he or she wishes to pursue.’ ” (People v. Clark, sup

2023Analysis “ ‘[T]he right to counsel guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus also includes the right to reasonably necessary defense services. [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 732 ; see also People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 630 .) “But ‘the right to ancillary services arises only when a defendant demonstrates such funds are “reasonably necessary” for his or her defense by reference to the general lines of inquiry that he or she wishes to pursue.’ ” (People v. Clark, sup

2016(People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1184 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 ].) “An appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on an application for authorization to incur expenses to prepare or present a defense for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 234 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 926 P.2d 365 ].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for funds for the polygraph expert to administer a polygraph test on defendant.

2016(People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1184 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 ].) “An appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on an application for authorization to incur expenses to prepare or present a defense for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 234 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 926 P.2d 365 ].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for funds for the polygraph expert to administer a polygraph test on defendant.

2016(People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1184 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 ].) “An appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on an application for authorization to incur expenses to prepare or present a defense for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 234 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 926 P.2d 365 ].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for funds for the polygraph expert to administer a polygraph test on defendant.

2016(People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1184 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69 , 5 P.3d 130 ].) “An appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on an application for authorization to incur expenses to prepare or present a defense for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 234 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 926 P.2d 365 ].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for funds for the polygraph expert to administer a polygraph test on defendant.

2013The right to reasonably necessary ancillary defense services and the lawyer-client privilege Several interrelated doctrines ensure that a defendant in a criminal case or a minor subject to a juvenile wardship petition has the right not only to counsel but also to necessary ancillary defense services and that communications with both counsel and any experts engaged to assist counsel will remain protected from disclosure. 5 First, “ ‘[t]he right to counsel guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus al

2013The right to reasonably necessary ancillary defense services and the lawyer-client privilege Several interrelated doctrines ensure that a defendant in a criminal case or a minor subject to a juvenile wardship petition has the right not only to counsel but also to necessary ancillary defense services and that communications with both counsel and any experts engaged to assist counsel will remain protected from disclosure. 5 First, “ ‘[t]he right to counsel guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus al

2011(Kane v. Garcia Espitia (2005) 546 U.S. 9, 10 [ 163 L.Ed.2d 10 , 126 S.Ct. 407 ].) Some federal circuit courts have held that “[w]hen a prisoner voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel in a criminal proceeding, he is not entitled to access to a law library or other legal materials.” (U.S. v. Cooper (10th Cir. 2004) 375 F.3d 1041, 1052 .) But, the California Supreme Court has recognized that the right to self-representation, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, “ ‘includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus also includes the rig

2011(Kane v. Garcia Espitia (2005) 546 U.S. 9, 10 [ 163 L.Ed.2d 10 , 126 S.Ct. 407 ].) Some federal circuit courts have held that “[w]hen a prisoner voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel in a criminal proceeding, he is not entitled to access to a law library or other legal materials.” (U.S. v. Cooper (10th Cir. 2004) 375 F.3d 1041, 1052 .) But, the California Supreme Court has recognized that the right to self-representation, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, “ ‘includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus also includes the rig

2011(Kane v. Garcia Espitia (2005) 546 U.S. 9, 10 [ 163 L.Ed.2d 10 , 126 S.Ct. 407 ].) Some federal circuit courts have held that “[w]hen a prisoner voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel in a criminal proceeding, he is not entitled to access to a law library or other legal materials.” (U.S. v. Cooper (10th Cir. 2004) 375 F.3d 1041, 1052 .) But, the California Supreme Court has recognized that the right to self-representation, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, “ ‘includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus also includes the rig

2011(Kane v. Garcia Espitia (2005) 546 U.S. 9, 10 [ 163 L.Ed.2d 10 , 126 S.Ct. 407 ].) Some federal circuit courts have held that “[w]hen a prisoner voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel in a criminal proceeding, he is not entitled to access to a law library or other legal materials.” (U.S. v. Cooper (10th Cir. 2004) 375 F.3d 1041, 1052 .) But, the California Supreme Court has recognized that the right to self-representation, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, “ ‘includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel [citations], and thus also includes the rig

2005(County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 805, 815 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 ].) At the relevant time (1987 through 1989), that statute provided, as it does today, in pertinent part: “In the trial of a capital case ... the indigent defendant, through the defendant’s counsel, may request the court for funds for the specific payment of investigators, experts, and others for the preparation or presentation of the defense.

2005(County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 805, 815 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 ].) At the relevant time (1987 through 1989), that statute provided, as it does today, in pertinent part: “In the trial of a capital case ... the indigent defendant, through the defendant’s counsel, may request the court for funds for the specific payment of investigators, experts, and others for the preparation or presentation of the defense.