Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
@ohwilleke - I am not saying its wrong. But it does not answer the question asked. I understand the current interpretation. This is a theory question about if it can be applied in this manner. If not then why not, backed up by references.
@Nij - It does not sound like the OP intends to draw beautiful flowers... rolling around on concrete in a pile of chalk and terrible drawings. As I said in the answer though it really depends on the mood of the officer responding if your "ugly" flower is just ugly, or if its an attempt to deface someone elses property, or you are just letting your child out, or if you are trying to be a jerk.
I think your answer would be better organized if you lead with the sovereign immunity then explain how it would work. My initial read of the answer lead to a knee jerk down vote because you lead with impeachment. In theory the house could be split in such a way as to prevent articles of impeachment from ever being drafted let alone voted on
@DidIReallyWriteThat - I am not saying that he wins that argument, just that in order for the defendant to even raise that argument the process needed to progress further with out the defendant retaining another lawyer. I suspect on appeal the ruling would have been upheld since the sole reason for dismissing his attorney was so that the defendant could commit perjury. You do not get rewarded for breaking the law.
@DidIReallyWriteThat - Judges get things wrong some times. But the judge getting it wrong only is considered when the result of the ruling had an impact on the result of the trial. Since the defendant secured private council the ruling was moot. Had the defendant wanted an appeals case then the thing for him to do was to force the judge to amend the ruling or to force compliance. At that point then an argument could be made to the appellate court that the judge denied the defendants right to counsel. But because the defendant opted to hire a private attorney it is a moot point
@DM - And as I said in the comment on my answer, had the defendant actually been forced to represent themselves pro se, then that rule might apply. The actuality of the case was the defendant did not challenge the ruling that another PD need not be assigned, and instead procured private representation.
