Should this Court establish a bright-line test for determining whether a criminal defendant's right to retained counsel of his choice is violated, wherein the only inquiry should be whether he or she has intentionally attempted to delay trial in bad faith?

QUESTION PRESENTED In every jurisdiction in the United Statesboth federal and statethere is a balancing test for deciding whether a court’s decision to deny a continuance request so that a criminal defendant may secure counsel of his choice violates that defendant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On one hand, a criminal defendant’s right to counsel of his choice is important only if exercising it is satisfactory according to a number of extraneous considerations, but on the other hand is so important that its denial in certain circumstances automatically requires a new trial. The dissonance in the perception of the right to counsel of one’s choice is the crux of the matter in this Petition. Newnam thus posits this question: Should this Court establish a bright-line test for determining whether a criminal defendant’s right to retained counsel of his choice is violated, wherein the only inquiry should be whether he or she has intentionally attempted to delay trial in bad faith?