A defendant sought the services of an out-of-state attorney to represent her against a charge of felony animal abuse. This attorney was erroneously denied pro hac vice admission by the trial court. The defendant then hired an in-state attorney to represent her. The defendant was convicted of the crime, even though the in-state attorney provided the defendant with competent, adequate representation. On appeal, the defendant challenged her conviction on the basis that she was denied her Sixth Amendment right to counsel. How should the appellate court rule on this c

Reverse the conviction, because the trial court denied the defendant representation by the counsel of her choice.

Explanation:

The appellate court rule on this challenge should be to reverse the conviction, because the trial court denied the defendant representation by the counsel of her choice.

In a situation whereby an attorney isn't provided by the state, a defendant is entitled constitutionally to be represented by a qualified attorney at a trial based on the choice of the defendant.

In this case, the defendant was denied her Sixth Amendment right to counsel and therefore, the conviction should be reversed.

answer:

omg lol

explanation:

answer:

my dad is named james

explanation: