context: The judge did not make any attempt to assess the defendant's complaints regarding appointed counsel, despite the defendant's multiple and specific allegations about counsel's actions. We have required, even where an attorney has an impeccable reputation, that specific inquiry be made into the nature of a defendant's precise complaint against counsel.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 393 Mass. 801, 804
citation_a.parenthetical: denial of defendant's motion for removal of counsel proper on day on which trial was scheduled to begin, where judge conducted detailed colloquy, and concluded that "these motions for a new attorney [were] no more than a delaying tactic"
citation_a.sentence: See Commonwealth v. Tuitt, 393 Mass. 801, 804 (1985) (denial of defendant’s motion for removal of counsel proper on day on which trial was scheduled to begin, where judge conducted detailed colloquy, and concluded that “these motions for a new attorney [were] no more than a delaying tactic”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 53 Mass. App. Ct. 558, 562
citation_b.parenthetical: "when a defendant alleges that counsel is unprepared, the judge should perform some colloquy to ascertain whether this is a dilatory tactic or whether counsel is truly unprepared"
citation_b.sentence: See also Commonwealth v. Carsetti, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 558, 562 (2002) (“when a defendant alleges that counsel is unprepared, the judge should perform some colloquy to ascertain whether this is a dilatory tactic or whether counsel is truly unprepared”).