Is the EEOC's understanding of its rule entitled to respect under Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 127 S. Ct. 2339 (2007) -- a case decided twelve days after the Eighth Circuit delivered its decision in this case?

Martel v. Clair - Docket No., 10-1265

In this case after ten years of capital federal habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, respondent abruptly complained about and sought substitution of his court-appointed public defender with a new appointed lawyer. The district court refused, explaining that "it appears Petitioner's counsel is doing a proper job" and that "[n]o conflict of interest or inadequacy of counsel is shown," and issued its ruling denying habeas corpus relief. On appeal, though, the Ninth Circuit appointed a replacement lawyer, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings to allow the new lawyer to raise supplementary...

The Ninth Circuit explained that no showing of ineptitude of counsel was required; for it was enough that Clair had expressed discontent and had alleged that the public defender was failing to pursue potentially significant evidence. The question before the court is: whether a condemned state prisoner in federal habeas corpus proceedings is allowed to replace his court-appointed counsel with another court appointed lawyer just because he states dissatisfaction and alleges that his counsel was failing to pursue potentially significant evidence.
References

Preview of the United States Supreme Court Briefs 2011-2012 Supreme Court Briefs. (2011).

Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/alphabetical.html

Supreme Court Docket. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/summaries/docketsup.htm