The record manifests that the district court’s denial of Chatman’s mid-trial motion to dismiss counsel and to appoint a replacement did not constitute an abuse of discretion.1
This conclusion is dispositive of the appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
436 F.2d 1377
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Alford CHATMAN, Appellant.
No. 26120.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 2, 1971.
Michael Korn, Van Nuys, Cal., for appellant.
Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., John W. Horn-beck, Asst. U. S. Atty., .Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before MERRILL, KOELSCH and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
United States v. Chatman
436 F.2d 1377
Case Details
436 F.2d 1377
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!