Did the trial judge abuse his discretion by appointing lawyers who were fired by the defendant as his standby counsel when he represented himself pro se?

Question

Marco Allen Chapman pled guilty to murder and volunteered for the death penalty after firing his attorneys. He was allowed to represent himself after the trial court held a hearing and ruled that Chapman was competent to fire his attorneys, to plead guilty, and to seek death. Over the objections of both Chapman and his former attorneys, the trial court appointed the same attorneys Chapman fired to act as his standby counsel. Chapman alleged a communication breakdown and irreconcilable differences between him and his attorneys but in fact they continued to confer. Chapman was sentenced to death.
What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

NO

The distinct advantage in appointing recently-fired attorneys includes familiarity with the case, allowing the case to go forward quickly and easily if Chapman later withdrew his request to proceed pro se. Appointing "fresh" counsel who were not familiar with the facts and circumstances of the already two-year old case would likely have led to a continuance. This may have frustrated Chapman's stated aim of being sentenced to death simply and quickly. Moreover, a defendant is not entitled to a specific court-appointed counsel of his own choosing. Chapman's standby counsel had moral and legal objections to Chapman's goal. Although Kentucky court rules permit an attorney to withdraw from representing a client if the client pursues an objective that the attorney considers "repugnant or imprudent,"the Kentucky Supreme Court has held that a judge can override such desire to withdraw. The court rules also state that an attorney must defer to the client's choice of whether to plead guilty and that such representation does not constitute an endorsement of that client's social or moral viewpoint. Also, the lawyers in this case were not required to continue as Chapman's actual counsel of record—rather, they were required to function in the limited role of standby counsel. The alleged communication breakdown in fact did not occur. Appointing a recently-fired attorney to act as a defendant's standby counsel may not be wise or proper in all cases, but a trial court possesses inherent authority to appoint standby counsel for a pro se defendant over the objections of defendant and counsel.