EARL SYLVESTER COUSINS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Arthur, Feb. 1, 2017,
Sixth Amendment- A defendant filing a grievance against their court-appointed attorney does not automatically entitle them to a new one

Facts: Cousins was arrested for bank robbery in Baltimore County. Following arrest, he gave a taped statement where he admitted to the robbery and identified his co-defendant.
Prior to trial, Cousins tried to have the confession suppressed on the grounds that it wasn’t voluntary due to intoxication and drug use at the time. The judge denied the motion, but Cousins had a falling out with his attorney about whether the attorney should have shown the court video showing, in the words of the Court of Special Appeals, “almost two hours of irrelevant footage of Mr. Cousins passing time in a room after he had been interviewed by the police. Throughout the majority of the video, Mr. Cousins is either asleep or lying on the floor with a blanket on top of him.”
When his attorney didn’t use that video, Cousins filed a grievance with the Attorney Grievance Commission about his failure to do so (the complaint was dismissed). When the case came back to court for trial, the following exchange occurred:
[MR. COUSINS]: [Defense counsel] is a piece of shit and a liar too.
[COURT]: You can discharge [defense counsel] if you wish.
[MR. COUSINS]: And I discharge [defense counsel], and that, that police over there is a liar and a piece of shit.
[COURT]: You would be extraordinarily –
[MR. COUSINS]: (inaudible) asshole.
[COURT]: You would, you would, it would, it would not be in your interest to discharge [defense counsel].
[MR. COUSINS]: (inaudible) he’s discharged and may you have a blessed day, asshole.
At trial the next day, Cousins informed that judge that “I’m going to disrupt your Court until you do what you supposed to do.” Cousins then began cursing and talking out, telling the judge
[COURT]: All right. So Mr. Cousins, the Court has the authority to remove you from these Court proceedings which I intend to exercise in such a moment.
…
[COURT]: The, I am going to seek, unless you promise to behave yourself —
[MR. COUSINS]: I’m going to promise you this, kiss my black ass where the sun don’t shine. I’m going to promise you that.
Cousins was then removed from the courtroom. A deputy was left with him and Cousins was told that he could return if he behaved himself. The trial court asked Cousins numerous times over the course of the trial if he wished to rejoin, but Cousins declined each time.
Cousins was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 15 years.
Cousins appealed, claiming that the trial judge should have appointed him a new lawyer after he fired his old one and that the trial court should have given him a way to watch the trial from outside the courtroom.
The Court of Special Appeals disagreed.

When a defendant requests discharge of counsel, the Court of Appeals requires strict compliance with Rule 4-215(e):
1) Allow the defendant to explain the reason
2) Determine whether there is good cause to discharge counsel
3) Advise the defendant and take action as required

Discharge of counsel- A breakdown in communications between a defendant and his lawyer is generally considered “good cause” to discharge counsel. However, part of the analysis involves looking at whether “the defendant substantially and unreasonably contributed to the communication breakdown.”

Sixth Amendment- A defendant does not have the right to fire his lawyer and demand a new one right before trial

Discharge of counsel- While a defendant filing a grievance against an attorney is a significant issue leaning toward a finding of good cause, a defendant cannot get a new lawyer simply by filing a grievance against his old one.

Voluntariness- Where a trial court observed “a defendant’s demeanor during the interview itself, which included the Miranda warnings, and to rule accordingly on the voluntariness of his statements” there is no need for the court to watch two hours of the defendant sleeping afterward.

Removal of Defendant- There is no requirement to allow a defendant to watch video of a trial after he has been removed and could return at any time