Daniels v. Lafler

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that an indigent defendant had no choice-of-counsel right, and thus trial court's removal of defendant's originally appointed defense counsel with new counsel did not violate any such right
• stating that an indigent defendant had no choice-of-counsel right, and thus trial court's removal of defendant's originally appointed defense counsel with new counsel did not violate any such right
• noting that federal courts may grant habeas relief “based on errors in state jury instructions only in extraordinary cases” in which “‘the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process’”
• offering examples of instances when a defendant could be prejudiced by the district court’s decision to replace his counsel, including if the court appointed new counsel to a defendant hours before a trial was scheduled to begin or substituted a skilled lawyer with an unskilled lawyer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).