Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Stewartred2 sentences2013(Stewart, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at p. 393 .) In both cases, an in camera Marsden hearing was held. 2008(Madrid, supra, at p. 19 ; People v. Stewart (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 388, 395 [ 217 Cal.Rptr. 306 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 , 863 P.2d 192 ], as stated in People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 346, fn. 16 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 , 956 P.2d 374 ].) So a Marsden motion requesting the Marsden hearing that had just occurred could, among other things, be considered not timely. | 1 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2021(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 691-692 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ]; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-217 .) Because we find there was sufficient reason for the positioning of the deputy based on defendant’s own courtroom behavior during the in camera Marsden hearing – behavior trial counsel observed – and since defendant suffered no prejudice, we reject defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 2021(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 691-692 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ]; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-217 .) Because we find there was sufficient reason for the positioning of the deputy based on defendant’s own courtroom behavior during the in camera Marsden hearing – behavior trial counsel observed – and since defendant suffered no prejudice, we reject defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bolingreen2 sentences2008(Madrid, supra, at p. 19 ; People v. Stewart (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 388, 395 [ 217 Cal.Rptr. 306 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 , 863 P.2d 192 ], as stated in People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 346, fn. 16 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 , 956 P.2d 374 ].) So a Marsden motion requesting the Marsden hearing that had just occurred could, among other things, be considered not timely. 2008(Madrid, supra, at p. 19 ; People v. Stewart (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 388, 395 [ 217 Cal.Rptr. 306 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 , 863 P.2d 192 ], as stated in People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 346, fn. 16 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 , 956 P.2d 374 ].) So a Marsden motion requesting the Marsden hearing that had just occurred could, among other things, be considered not timely. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Madridgreen2 sentences2008(People v. Madrid (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 14, 18 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 813 ] (Madrid), citing, e.g., People v. Avalos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 216 , *815 231 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 549 , 689 P.2d 121 ]; Harris v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 786, 791 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 318 , 567 P.2d 750 ].) An in camera Marsden hearing is “the better practice,” but a Marsden hearing in open court is permissible where, as here, neither the defendant nor defense counsel asks for an in camera hearing and the defendant’s complaints neither disclose information that conceivably could lighten the prosecutor’s burden of proof nor involve 2008(People v. Madrid (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 14, 18 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 813 ] (Madrid), citing, e.g., People v. Avalos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 216 , *815 231 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 549 , 689 P.2d 121 ]; Harris v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 786, 791 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 318 , 567 P.2d 750 ].) An in camera Marsden hearing is “the better practice,” but a Marsden hearing in open court is permissible where, as here, neither the defendant nor defense counsel asks for an in camera hearing and the defendant’s complaints neither disclose information that conceivably could lighten the prosecutor’s burden of proof nor involve | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2008(People v. Madrid (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 14, 18 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 813 ] (Madrid), citing, e.g., People v. Avalos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 216 , *815 231 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 549 , 689 P.2d 121 ]; Harris v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 786, 791 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 318 , 567 P.2d 750 ].) An in camera Marsden hearing is “the better practice,” but a Marsden hearing in open court is permissible where, as here, neither the defendant nor defense counsel asks for an in camera hearing and the defendant’s complaints neither disclose information that conceivably could lighten the prosecutor’s burden of proof nor involve 2008(People v. Madrid (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 14, 18 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 813 ] (Madrid), citing, e.g., People v. Avalos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 216 , *815 231 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 549 , 689 P.2d 121 ]; Harris v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 786, 791 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 318 , 567 P.2d 750 ].) An in camera Marsden hearing is “the better practice,” but a Marsden hearing in open court is permissible where, as here, neither the defendant nor defense counsel asks for an in camera hearing and the defendant’s complaints neither disclose information that conceivably could lighten the prosecutor’s burden of proof nor involve | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2008(Madrid, supra, at p. 19 ; People v. Stewart (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 388, 395 [ 217 Cal.Rptr. 306 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 , 863 P.2d 192 ], as stated in People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 346, fn. 16 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 , 956 P.2d 374 ].) So a Marsden motion requesting the Marsden hearing that had just occurred could, among other things, be considered not timely. 2008(Madrid, supra, at p. 19 ; People v. Stewart (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 388, 395 [ 217 Cal.Rptr. 306 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 , 863 P.2d 192 ], as stated in People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 346, fn. 16 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 , 956 P.2d 374 ].) So a Marsden motion requesting the Marsden hearing that had just occurred could, among other things, be considered not timely. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Marsden
green
2 sentences2021The trial court reviewed defendant’s motion and conducted an in camera hearing.5 During the in camera hearing, defendant’s complaints first focused on trial counsel not providing him a copy of the preliminary hearing transcript, the victim being “coerced” to come to court for the preliminary hearing in what defendant asserted was a 3 Since defendant made his Faretta request during an in camera Marsden hearing (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 ) and the context is important, we set forth those proceedings in some detail. 2015The trial court recited the history of the issue, and in particular noted visible chains were “the most preferable form or restraint for the Court and for my security staff, but on the first day of trial . . . we were able to make a decision to use this Bandit instead and your client consented to that clearly and unequivocally. [¶] But, then he changed his mind and we went to the chains yesterday.” After defense counsel stated the trial court needed to make a determination justifying the increased level of restraint, the trial court stated “there have been some changes in circumstances” and de | 4 | 1991–2021 |
People v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2026(Id. at pp. 18-19.) “An in camera Marsden hearing is ‘the better practice,’ but a Marsden hearing in open court is permissible where, as here, neither the defendant nor defense counsel asks for an in camera hearing and the defendant’s complaints neither disclose information that conceivably could lighten the prosecutor’s burden of proof nor involve evidence or strategy to which the prosecutor is not privy.” (People v. Lopez (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 801, 815 .) Defendant had already pleaded no contest and been sentenced for his offenses when the matter was remanded for the limited purpose of rese | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Knight
green
1 sentence2025(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.47; People v. Knight (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1 , 7– 8.) By prior order, and without objection from the parties, we have unsealed appellant’s opening brief and will address the court’s ruling at the Marsden hearing. 29. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Ledesma
green
1 sentence2021(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 691-692 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ]; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-217 .) Because we find there was sufficient reason for the positioning of the deputy based on defendant’s own courtroom behavior during the in camera Marsden hearing – behavior trial counsel observed – and since defendant suffered no prejudice, we reject defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Clark
green
1 sentence2013Defendant has not met his burden to show an abuse of discretion, as none of his complaints indicated to the court “‘“that a failure to replace counsel would substantially impair the defendant’s right to assistance of counsel.”’ [Citations.]” (Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 912 .) Tactical disagreements and a defendant’s lack of trust in his attorney do not establish an irreconcilable conflict requiring removal of appointed counsel unless it appears that counsel’s representation is inadequate or incompetent or there is a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Avalos
green
2 sentences2008(People v. Madrid (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 14, 18 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 813 ] (Madrid), citing, e.g., People v. Avalos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 216 , *815 231 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 549 , 689 P.2d 121 ]; Harris v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 786, 791 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 318 , 567 P.2d 750 ].) An in camera Marsden hearing is “the better practice,” but a Marsden hearing in open court is permissible where, as here, neither the defendant nor defense counsel asks for an in camera hearing and the defendant’s complaints neither disclose information that conceivably could lighten the prosecutor’s burden of proof nor involve 2008(People v. Madrid (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 14, 18 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 813 ] (Madrid), citing, e.g., People v. Avalos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 216 , *815 231 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 549 , 689 P.2d 121 ]; Harris v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 786, 791 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 318 , 567 P.2d 750 ].) An in camera Marsden hearing is “the better practice,” but a Marsden hearing in open court is permissible where, as here, neither the defendant nor defense counsel asks for an in camera hearing and the defendant’s complaints neither disclose information that conceivably could lighten the prosecutor’s burden of proof nor involve | 1 | 2008–2008 |