Appellate Panel Hears Arguments Over Straub’s Claim That Court Erred by Denying New Counsel

At an appellate hearing, defense attorney Jared Steed argued that the trial court erred in denying repeated requests to withdraw defense counsel and that the resulting attorney–client communication breakdown entitled Christopher Straub to a new trial. "The trial court's denial of counsel's repeated efforts to withdraw due to a complete breakdown in communication ... was error," Steed told the panel and reserved time for rebuttal.

Steed told the court the breakdown began in mid-June and persisted through the July 23 conference and trial, and he emphasized that although there had been earlier conferences and some plea discussion, the collapse of communication later in the case left Straub without effective assistance. He pointed to three motions in the record to discharge counsel, saying two were withdrawn but the third, noted on June 18, "is never withdrawn," and that the trial court remained on notice of the conflict.

Amy Meckling of the King County Prosecutor's Office urged the court not to reverse. "This court should decline to issue an opinion that would allow a criminal defendant to manufacture a denial of counsel claim on appeal by simply refusing to participate in his prosecution," Meckling said. The prosecutor argued the record shows Straub at times said he did not want a lawyer or to participate, and that the trial court reasonably concluded additional appointment would not solve the problem and would cause delay.

Panel members repeatedly questioned where the record demonstrates a total breakdown of communication that would require the trial court to override Straub's in-court statements. One questioner noted the record includes earlier communications and a plea offer that was discussed and rejected, suggesting some contact between defendant and counsel months before trial.

Meckling also recounted courtroom statements and post-conviction context, saying Straub at times declared "I have nothing to say" and that a later evaluation disclosed a "significant personality disorder," which the prosecution said was consistent with his conduct. The prosecutor asked the appellate court to affirm Straub's convictions and decline to find a denial of counsel.

Steed responded that the record includes multiple points at which counsel and the trial court were on notice of a breakdown and that the third, unresolved motion warranted reversal and a new trial. He asked the court to reverse the convictions on that basis.

The court did not announce a decision in this excerpt. Counsel concluded argument and the court thanked both attorneys.