LEDAY

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States, 879 F.2d 975 (1st Cir. 1989)
  …ree months prior to trial); Sampley v. Attorney General of North Carolina, 786 F. 2d 610, 612-16 (4th Cir.) (upholding district court’s refusal to grant continuance in case in which defendant showed up on day of trial with no counsel), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1008, 106 S.Ct. 3305, 92 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986); United States v. Mastroianni, 749 F. 2d 900, 913-14 (1st Cir.1984) (upholding district court’s refusal of defendant’s motion to substitute counsel four days prior to trial). It is also appropriate, however, fo…
• United States v. West, 877 F.2d 281 (4th Cir. 1989)
  …oceeding on schedule. Gallop, 838 F. 2d at 108. This countervailing interest has no less weight merely because the motion is filed by a pro se defendant. See Sampley v. Attorney General of North Carolina, 786 F. 2d 610, 613 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1008, 106 S.Ct. 3305, 92 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986) (trial court is necessarily entitled to take into account the countervailing interest in proceeding on schedule when defendant requests continuance on basis that he does not have counsel to represent him). We h…
• Fuller v. Diesslin, 868 F.2d 604 (3d Cir. 1989)
  …79 F. 2d at 960; Sampley v. Attorney General of North Carolina, 786 F. 2d 610, 613 (4th Cir.1986) (courts have broad latitude in deciding whether to grant continuance, even where decision results in [*612] denial of counsel of choice), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1008, 106 S.Ct. 3305, 92 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). The Eighth Circuit has gone further and interpreted this broad grant of discretion to permit a trial court to deny the defendant’s choice based on the trial court’s presumption that in-state counsel would pro…