United States Supreme Court

Denial of a habeas petitioner's motion to substitute counsel under 18 USC section 3599 is affirmed, with a holding that courts should employ the same "interests of justice" standard for ruling on motions to substitute counsel in capital cases under 18 USC section 3599 that applies in noncapital cases under 18 USC section 3006A, and a finding that under the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner's request for new counsel.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/05/2012
• Published 03/05/2012

Judges

• Kagan

Court

• United States Supreme Court

Counsel