Maniscalco
Maniscalco v. Superior Court
Opinion
Opinion
Crosby, J.
Thomas Frank Maniscalco is charged with three murders and faces a potential death penalty. The superior court removed his three appointed counsel after the first trial ended with a hung jury, and he sought writ relief from a portion of that order. We denied the petition summarily, but the Supreme Court granted review and retransferred the matter to us with directions to issue an alternative writ. After a full hearing on the merits, we once again deny the petition.
Article I, section 29 of the California Constitution states, “In a criminal case, the people of the State of California have the right to due process of law and to a speedy and public trial.” This provision was undoubtedly inspired by aberrational cases like this one, which has wended its way through the criminal justice system with all the lassitude of an underpowered tramp steamer drifting through the tropics.
The killings were committed in May of 1980. Maniscalco and a codefendant were accused in March 1984, and both have been in custody ever since. Joanne Harrold and Andrew Roth were appointed to represent Maniscalco. The case languished in the system until trial began in 1989. After seven weeks of…