<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; right to counsel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/tag/right-to-counsel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 22:56:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The spit and run defense&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/11/16/the-spit-and-run-defense/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/11/16/the-spit-and-run-defense/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:06:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Donovan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Top Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to counsel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=67944</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You think you have problem clients? One defendant tried to feign mental impairment, ran off three appointed attorneys—one of whom he threatened to kill and spit in the attorney’s face—and then argued on appeal that he had been denied his right to counsel.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/11/16/the-spit-and-run-defense/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Probation Revocation – Right to Counsel – Waiver Form&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/20/criminal-practice-probation-revocation-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-waiver-form/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/20/criminal-practice-probation-revocation-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-waiver-form/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:26:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[probation revocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver Form]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=61918</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Ramirez</em> Both on defendant’s waiver form and before the trial court, defendant consistently maintained that he intended to hire an attorney and did not intend to proceed pro se. The trial court seems to have been under the mistaken belief that defendant had waived his right to all counsel, as the state told the trial court that defendant had “waived counsel,” and, when directed by the trial court to begin only if counsel had been waived, the state began discussing the merits of the hearing.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/20/criminal-practice-probation-revocation-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-waiver-form/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic Relations &#8211; Parent &amp; Child – Termination of Parental Rights – Right to Counsel – Waiver – Guardian ad Litem’s Role&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/16/domestic-relations-parent-child-%e2%80%93-termination-of-parental-rights-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-waiver-%e2%80%93-guardian-ad-litem%e2%80%99s-role/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/16/domestic-relations-parent-child-%e2%80%93-termination-of-parental-rights-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-waiver-%e2%80%93-guardian-ad-litem%e2%80%99s-role/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:22:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guardian ad Litem’s Role]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parent & child]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[termination of parental rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waiver]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=61716</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>In re P.D.R.</em> Our Court of Appeals applied G.S. § 15A-1242 to find that a trial court had abused its discretion by allowing the respondent in a termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) proceeding to waive her right to counsel. Section 15A-1242 applies in criminal proceedings and has no application in TPR proceedings.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/16/domestic-relations-parent-child-%e2%80%93-termination-of-parental-rights-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-waiver-%e2%80%93-guardian-ad-litem%e2%80%99s-role/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Constitutional – Right to Counsel – Waiver – Knowing &amp; Intelligent – Insufficient Showing&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/13/criminal-practice-constitutional-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-waiver-%e2%80%93-knowing-intelligent-%e2%80%93-insufficient-showing/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/13/criminal-practice-constitutional-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-waiver-%e2%80%93-knowing-intelligent-%e2%80%93-insufficient-showing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:48:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insufficient showing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Knowing & Intelligent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waiver]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=60924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Anderson</em> Where our Court of Appeals held, Even though defendant executed a written waiver of counsel which was certified by the trial court, since the trial court failed to clarify the specific charges against defendant, to inform him of potential punishments, or explicitly to inform defendant that he could request court-appointed counsel, defendant has shown that the trial court failed to determine whether defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, we affirm.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/13/criminal-practice-constitutional-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-waiver-%e2%80%93-knowing-intelligent-%e2%80%93-insufficient-showing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Constitutional – Right to Counsel – Withdrawal – No Substitution&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/12/16/criminal-practice-constitutional-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-withdrawal-%e2%80%93-no-substitution/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/12/16/criminal-practice-constitutional-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-withdrawal-%e2%80%93-no-substitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:47:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No Substitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=59356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Stroud </em>The trial court concluded there were “legal grounds to require counsel to withdraw or remove defense counsel,” but the court then gave defendant only two options: either keep existing defense counsel or waive counsel and try the case without an attorney. This was a constitutional error, and the state has not shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant is entitled to a new trial.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/12/16/criminal-practice-constitutional-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-withdrawal-%e2%80%93-no-substitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Constitutional – Right to Counsel – Miranda  Warnings – Videotaped Interview – Transcript Only&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/10/07/criminal-practice-constitutional-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-miranda-warnings-%e2%80%93-videotaped-interview-%e2%80%93-transcript-only/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/10/07/criminal-practice-constitutional-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-miranda-warnings-%e2%80%93-videotaped-interview-%e2%80%93-transcript-only/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 20:19:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miranda  Warnings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transcript Only]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Videotaped Interview]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=58343</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Jordan </em>The trial court’s determination that defendant had voluntarily and intelligently waived his Miranda rights was based not only on the transcript of defendant’s police interview, but also on the videotape of the interview. Defendant failed to include the videotape in the appellate record, so we must accept the trial court’s findings of fact as binding. The trial court’s findings of fact support its conclusion that defendant waived his Miranda rights intelligently, voluntarily and knowingly.

We find no error in defendant’s conviction of first-degree murder.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/10/07/criminal-practice-constitutional-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-miranda-warnings-%e2%80%93-videotaped-interview-%e2%80%93-transcript-only/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Constitutional – Right to Counsel – Potential Conflict of Interest – Previous Representation of State’s Witness – No Prejudice&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/09/02/criminal-practice-constitutional-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-potential-conflict-of-interest-%e2%80%93-previous-representation-of-state%e2%80%99s-witness-%e2%80%93-no-prejudice/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/09/02/criminal-practice-constitutional-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-potential-conflict-of-interest-%e2%80%93-previous-representation-of-state%e2%80%99s-witness-%e2%80%93-no-prejudice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no prejudice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Potential Conflict of Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Previous Representation of State’s Witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to counsel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=57803</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Choudhry </em>Where the trial court did not explain to defendant the limitations that defense counsel’s conflict of interest imposed on counsel’s ability to question a prosecution witness – counsel’s former client — regarding her 2003 criminal charges, we are unable to conclude that the trial court established that defendant understood the implications of counsel’s prior representation of the prosecution witness to ensure that defendant’s waiver of the potential conflict of interest was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/09/02/criminal-practice-constitutional-%e2%80%93-right-to-counsel-%e2%80%93-potential-conflict-of-interest-%e2%80%93-previous-representation-of-state%e2%80%99s-witness-%e2%80%93-no-prejudice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Constitutional &#8211; Right to Counsel &#8211; Waiver of Appointed Counsel &#8211; Pro Se &#8211; No Colloquy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/08/19/criminal-practice-constitutional-right-to-counsel-waiver-of-appointed-counsel-pro-se-no-colloquy/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/08/19/criminal-practice-constitutional-right-to-counsel-waiver-of-appointed-counsel-pro-se-no-colloquy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No Colloquy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pro se]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver of Appointed Counsel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=57563</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Seymore </em>Even though defendant signed a waiver of appointed counsel, the form did not indicate that he intended to proceed pro se; moreover, the record does not indicate that the trial court conducted the thorough inquiry required by G.S. § 15A-1242 before allowing defendant to represent himself.

Defendant is entitled to a new trial.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/08/19/criminal-practice-constitutional-right-to-counsel-waiver-of-appointed-counsel-pro-se-no-colloquy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Constitutional &#8211; Right to Counsel &#8211; Waiver &#8211; Knowing &amp; Intelligent &#8211; Insufficient Showing&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/08/19/criminal-practice-constitutional-right-to-counsel-waiver-knowing-intelligent-insufficient-showing/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/08/19/criminal-practice-constitutional-right-to-counsel-waiver-knowing-intelligent-insufficient-showing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:24:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insufficient showing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Knowing & Intelligent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waiver]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=57545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Anderson </em>Even though defendant executed a written waiver of counsel which was certified by the trial court, defendant has shown that the trial court failed to determine whether defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.

Defendant is entitled to a new trial.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/08/19/criminal-practice-constitutional-right-to-counsel-waiver-knowing-intelligent-insufficient-showing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Practice &#8211; Probation Revocation &#8211; Constitutional &#8211; Right to Counsel &#8211; Waiver &#8211; Insufficient Judicial Inquiry&#160;&#160;&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/07/25/criminal-practice-probation-revocation-constitutional-right-to-counsel-waiver-insufficient-judicial-inquiry/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/07/25/criminal-practice-probation-revocation-constitutional-right-to-counsel-waiver-insufficient-judicial-inquiry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:23:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insufficient Judicial Inquiry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[probation revocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waiver]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=57076</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>State v. Sorrow</em> Even though defendant executed two written waivers of counsel, since it does not appear the trial court conducted a thorough inquiry into whether defendant understood and appreciated the consequences of his decision to proceed pro se or whether defendant comprehended the nature of the charges and proceedings and the range of possible punishments, this failure to conduct the mandatory inquiry under G.S. § 15A-1242 is prejudicial error.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/07/25/criminal-practice-probation-revocation-constitutional-right-to-counsel-waiver-insufficient-judicial-inquiry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
