Probably could, but the defense attorney would be foolish to do so since waiving indictment would be tantamount to pleading you guilty of the offense.
This is a true statement. In court the defendant will be represented by counsel and may choose to testify, or not.
The defendant in a criminal trial is represented by his defense counsel.
A judge may allow counsel to withdraw from a case, but, unless the extenuating circumstances were extreme, would not allow them to withdraw if the case were already in trial.The defendant would be granted a continuance in order to obtain replacement counsel.
Huh? If you haven't been arrested yet, you're not even a defendant, why do you even have counsel?
When the right to counsel is not part of the Law in the area he or she is trialed.
Gideon v. Wainwright
The difference between the prosecution and counsel for defence is that the prosecution is the body that is representing the plaintiff who tries to convice the judge/magistrate that the defendant has committed crime while the counsel for defence is the body that is representing the defendant who tries to convince the judge/magistrate that the defendant has not committed any crime.
The SIXTH.
At your arraignment ask to be represented by one. They are usually appointed according to the financial need of the defendant. If your salary (or net worth) is over a certain amount you may not qualify for one and will have hire your own counsel.
This is in Bhutanese ContextRight to counsel or lawyer is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to fair trial, allowing for the defendant to be assisted by counsel, and if he cannot afford his own lawyer, requiring that the government should appoint one for him, or pay his legal expenses.[1] Article 7(21) requires the assistance of counsel for the accused in all criminal prosecution. This means that a defendant has a fundamental right to be represented by a counsel or lawyer during trial. It also means that if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, in almost all instances the government will appoint one to handle the case, at no cost to the defendant. This right shall encompass right to consult or to be represented by lawyer at almost every important phase of the criminal process, typically from arrest through the trial.[2] This provision guarantees not mere right to consult and to be presented by counsel but it advocates that the suspect is entitled to consult or to be represented by the lawyer or counsel of his or her choice.Under this provision, a person shall have the right to defend, consult and be presented by a lawyer or counsel so that the fair trial is not sacrificed at any cost. Right to legal representative is an elementary feature of the fair dispensation of justice, meaning no one should be deprived of his liberty due to his disadvantage. Moreover, this provision is not merely a guarantee of a right to counsel for disadvantaged persons, but it is also a guarantee against government actions which restricts the right of a person to consult or to be represented by the lawyer of his choice. In other words, a person arrested and put on his defense against a criminal charge which may result in penalty, is entitled to the right to defend himself with the aid or counsel and any law or government action that takes away this right offends the protection guaranteed by Article 7(21) of the Constitution.However, the right guaranteed by Article 7(21) is an optional right. It is not necessary that person should somehow have a legal counsel or a person should consult or be represented by a legal counsel. The discretion lies in the hand of the respective person. It is individual choice whether he or she want to have a legal counsel or not. When person chooses to have a legal counsel the government cannot in any means restrict his or her right to consult or to be represented by a legal counsel.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel[2]http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/criminal_rights_courtroom/right_to_counsel.html
The defendant might not personally get to "see it," (except at trial) but his legal counsel certainly may.
In Argersinger v Hamlin, 407 US 25 (1972) the Court extended the right to court-appointed counsel for any defendant facing jail time, even if the defendant was being charged with a misdemeanor. In previous cases the defendant was only allowed appointed counsel if charged with a felony. This case made sure any defendant facing any loss of liberty had the right to appointed counsel.