Com. v. McKenna

3 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. MAI (HUNG T.)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed March 30, 2010

    ated its independent “duty to protect the rights of the accused andits duty to ensure a fair determination of the issues on the merits” and its obligation to promote “the orderly administration ofjustice”’]; People v. Shelley, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at pp. 530-533 [same, even though client assented in defense counsel’s non-participation]; Clisby v. Jones (11th Cir. 1992) 960 F.2d 925, 934 & fn. 12 [suggesting that trial courts have independent “duty to intervene” when the “trial proceedings are so evidently and so fundamentally unfair as to threaten to render the trial a mockery of justice”); United States v. ex rel. Darcy v. Handy (3d Cir. 1953) 203 F.2d 407, 427 [there are circumstances under which counsel’s representationis “so lacking in competency or good faith that it would becomethe duty ofthe trial judge or the prosecutor, as officers of the state, to observe and correct it” so as to avoid trial that amounts to a “farce and a mockery ofjustice” in violation of due process]; cf. Commonwealth v. McKenna (PA 1978) 383 A.2d 174, 181 [overwhelming public interest in ensuring that death penalty is imposed in constitutional manner warranted reviewing court’s sua sponte reversal of death sentence based uponissue appellate counsel did not raise due to client’s preference for the death penalty]; Massaro v. United States (2003) 538 U.S. 500, 508 [recognizing that appellate court may find sua sponte ineffective assistance of counsel whenthere are “obvious deficiencies in representation”in thetrial record].) In sum, “[i]n a death penalty case, [this Court] expects the trial court and the attorneys to proceed with the utmost care and diligence and with the most scrupulous regard for fair and correct procedure.

  2. PEOPLE v. MAI (HUNG T.)

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed June 28, 2012

    ” | Furthermore, applying forfeiture here would defeat the very purpose of the sua sponte duties that are the subject of Mr. Mai’s challenge on appeal: the duties to exclude irrelevant matter (Pen. Code, § 1044), particularly when its admission will threaten the fairness and integrity — and the appearanceof fairness — of the proceedings. (See, e.g., People v. McKenzie, supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 626-627; People v. Shelley (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 521, 530-533; Clisby v. Jones (11th Cir. 1992) 960 F.2d 925, 934 & fn. 12; United States v. ex rel. Darcy v. Handy (3d Cir. 1953) 203 F.2d 407, 427; Commonwealth v. McKenna (PA 1978) 383 A.2d 174, 181.) If the parties are doing their duties and thetrial is proceeding in a fair manner, there would be no duty to intervenein the first place.

  3. PEOPLE v. BURGENER (MICHAEL RAY)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed March 22, 2012

    Especially is this so where, as here, to do so would result in state aided suicide.’” (People v. Chadd, supra, 28 Cal.3d at p. 753 & fn. 9, quoting Commonwealth vy. McKenna (Pa. 1978) 383 A.2d 174, 181 (italics in original).) Judge Riemer was not compelled to grant appellant’s request under the Sixth Amendment, and his decision to do so cannot be upheld as a proper exercise of any discretion.