That's a separate argument for a more robust and effective public defender's office. This is arguing that there's a right to obtain a counsel of choice, which

That's a separate argument for a more robust and effective public defender's office. This is arguing that there's a right to obtain a counsel of choice, which is an argument that the justices said they have already rejected in oral argument [1]. The petitioner in this case is being represented by Howard Srebnick: http://www.royblack.com/attorneys/Howard/Srebnick/ http://www.royblack.com/attorneys/Howard/Srebnick/ and not a public defender. [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-419_h3ci.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcri... "JUSTICE KAGAN: I might just be repeating myself, but ­­[...] I thought that, again, that distinction was the one specifically rejected in Monsanto."