Elias' mother, Evangeline Castillo, had hired a private attorney to hammer out a plea agreement weeks earlier. But she could not afford to retain the lawyer, Tina Dampf, any longer.In other words, you knew you wouldn't have a lawyer for this hearing, since you knew you couldn't afford the lawyer you had before. And, since you knew this, and you didn't make alternative arrangements (i.e., asking for a public defender), then the court can only interpret that you don't want a lawyer.
She figured her son would be assigned to a public defender for the restitution hearing.
"Mr. Elias, do you have a lawyer representing you in this matter?" Nielsen asked the youth at the beginning of the hearing. He said he did not.
"So, Ms. Dampf is no longer representing you in this matter, is that correct?" Nielsen asked.
Yes, Elias said.
"All right, well we're going to proceed . . . at this time," Nielsen said.
In addition, the judge asked the defendant if he had a lawyer. It is not the judge's place to advise of Miranda rights; that responsibility belongs to the arresting officer. Defendant had a lawyer, and gave her up - the reason is immaterial - it's the defendant's responsibility to replace said lawyer, and that includes asking for assistance from the court when necessary. If you don't, then that's on you.
Word of advice to the mother - never have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent; you are obviously unarmed...
Wrong. It is the judge's obligation and duty under law to inquire as to why 1) the kid's lawyer of record didn't show up 2) ask if the kid wanted legal counsel. 3) provide referral to the public defender's office if the kid said yes.
In addition, the judge asked the defendant if he had a lawyer. It is not the judge's place to advise of Miranda rights; that responsibility belongs to the arresting officer. Defendant had a lawyer, and gave her up - the reason is immaterial - it's the defendant's responsibility to replace said lawyer, and that includes asking for assistance from the court when necessary. If you don't, then that's on you.
Wrong again. The judge is under a legal obligation and duty to comply with the law and uphold the Constitution. His legal obligation included 1) inquiring as to the reasons the kid didn't have counsel, and inquire as to why the attorney of record didn't show up at the hearing 2) refer the kid to the public defender's office if he could not afford it 3) find out if the kid wanted to represent himself 4) if the kid wanted to represent himself, to find out if the kid was competent to represent himself and he and his parent made a knowing waiver of counsel. None of these things were done by the judge.
The responsibility is not on the defendant to do these things. It is the responsibility of the Judge.
Word of advice to the mother - never have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent; you are obviously unarmed...
Too easy....I'll just pass on this one. It might be seen as a personal attack.