Cousins v. State, 153 A.3d 163

Defendant Earl Sylvester Cousins was charged with a bank robbery; surveillance footage and his recorded police confession (admitting drug use and the robbery) were central prosecution evidence.
On the eve of trial Cousins sought to discharge his court-appointed attorney, complaining counsel failed to play ~2 hours of post-interview footage showing him unconscious/lying on the floor and citing a grievance against counsel.
The trial court (after hearings, a competency evaluation, and colloquies) found no meritorious reason to discharge counsel under Md. Rule 4-215(e), warned Cousins that firing counsel would leave him unrepresented at trial, and the next day Cousins elected to represent himself.
During jury selection Cousins repeatedly and profanely threatened to disrupt the proceedings; the court removed him from the courtroom after warning him and offered a deputy to facilitate his timely return if he promised to behave.
Cousins was absent for the rest of the one-day trial, declined opportunities to rejoin, was convicted of robbery, and sentenced to 15 years; he appealed arguing (1) the court abused discretion in denying discharge/substitute counsel and (2) removal from the courtroom without means to monitor proceedings violated rights.

Issue	Cousins' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by finding no meritorious reason to discharge appointed counsel under Md. Rule 4-215(e)	Counsel failed to introduce the omitted portion of the police-interview video and the attorney-client relationship had broken down (grievance), so Cousins had good cause for substitution	The withheld footage was irrelevant (post-interview, showed Cousins asleep/unconscious); the grievance was meritless and did not prevent counsel from defending; discharging counsel on eve of trial would be manipulative and disruptive	Court did not abuse discretion; Rule 4-215(e) strictly complied with and reasons were not meritorious (no good cause)
Whether removing Cousins from the courtroom without providing audio/video monitoring violated his right to be present and to confront witnesses	Removal without means to monitor obstructed his constitutional rights to be present, confront and cross-examine witnesses; courts can and should provide feed	Cousins repeatedly promised and carried out disruptive conduct; removal was authorized; Biglari does not create a per se duty to provide remote monitoring and court reasonably offered opportunity to return via deputy	Removal was proper; court complied with precedent by offering return upon promise to behave and repeatedly offered opportunities to re-enter; no requirement to provide live feed

Dykes v. State, 444 Md. 642 (Md. 2015) (describing Md. Rule 4-215(e) waiver procedures and presumption against waiving appointed counsel)
Fowlkes v. State, 311 Md. 586 (Md. 1988) (indigent defendant cannot manipulate right to discharge counsel to frustrate proceedings)
Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266 (Md. 1990) (defendant may waive right to counsel but waiver may be unwise)
Graves v. State, 447 Md. 230 (Md. 2016) (Rule 4-215(e) requires strict compliance when waiving counsel)
Taylor v. State, 428 Md. 386 (Md. 2012) (addressing attorney-created conflicts that undermine representation)
Biglari v. State, 156 Md. App. 657 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004) (court may remove disruptive defendant; error if not given opportunity to return upon promise to behave)
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970) (options for handling disruptive defendant: bind/gag, contempt, or remove until promise to behave)