People ex rel. Steinhardt v. Fuller
Opinion of the Court
Code Cr. Proc. § 188, provides that “ when a defendant is brought before a magistrate upon an arrest, either with or without warrant, on a charge of having committed a crime, the magistrate must immediately inform him of the charge against him, and of his right to the aid of counsel in every stage of the proceedings, and before any further proceedings are had.” The intention of this section was to guard the rights of the prisoner by making it mandatory upon the magistrate to inform the accused of the charge he is required to answer; and the right to the aid of counsel in every stage of the proceedings- is guaranteed to him not only by the section referred to, but by section 8 of the same Code, as well as by section 6 of article I of the state constitution. The prisoner is entitled to know the name of his accuser, and, where the arrest was made on a warrant obtained upon an information filed, he is entitled to examine the complaint. Code Cr. Proc. § 205. It is clear, therefore, that it was the duty of the magistrate or of the clerk, if he had official charge of the complaint, to exhibit it to the prisoner’s attorney on demand. The fact that a different attorney appeared for the prisoner at the time of his arrest is of no importance. Magistrates’ courts are not courts of record, and, while attorneys must be recognized there, there is no provision of law for the substitution of attorneys. When a member of the bar appears for a client, it will generally be assumed that he has authority to-do so. His license to practice, granted under state authority, is ordinarily deemed a sufficient warrant for this purpose.
Under the circumstances, the application for a mandamus will be denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.