Kosar v. Boucek

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that substitution of counsel would have unreasonably delayed the judicial process where the defendant waited until the day of trial to request new counsel, the jury and witnesses were present, and the prosecutor and defense counsel were ready to proceed
• explaining that disagreements over defense strategy, including what evidence to present and what arguments to make, do not warrant substitution of counsel
• stating that a defendant is not entitled to a lawyer of his or her choice “simply by requesting that the attorney originally appointed be replaced”
• stating that a defendant is not entitled to counsel of choice “simply by requesting that the attorney originally appointed be replaced”
• holding that a substitution of counsel “would have unreasonably delayed the judicial process” where the defendant “waited until the day of trial to request new counsel[,]” [t]he jury and witnesses were present, and the prosecutor and defense counsel were ready to proceed.”
• stating that “[t]his Court is bound to follow decisions of our Supreme Court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).