NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — A routine DUI pretrial hearing Wednesday, Jan. 29, at the Newport Beach Harbor Justice Center turned contentious after Judge William S. Zidbeck denied a request by a new attorney to assume representation because the accused was not present in court, prompting a heated exchange with the appointed public defender.
According to court records, on Sept. 5, 2025, the accused was arrested on allegations of driving under the influence of alcohol. The accused was charged with driving under the influence, possession of a concealed firearm and engaging in prohibited speed contests.
When the accused’s case was called, the appointed public defender stood and informed the court that the accused was not present in the courtroom. The public defender said she had been trying to reach him all morning, but he was not responding to text messages.
Another lawyer then entered the courtroom and stated that she was appearing on behalf of the accused. She introduced herself to the judge and explained that she had previously spoken with the accused and agreed to represent him.
The new lawyer told the court that the accused works in a field that makes him difficult to reach but said she could contact him by phone and obtain his consent to substitute counsel.
She argued that it would be in the accused’s best interest to switch attorneys, stating that she has 35 years of experience as a lawyer and telling the judge that “public defenders don’t know what they are doing.”
The remarks visibly angered and surprised both Judge Zidbeck and the appointed public defender. The public defender immediately objected, stating that she had already discussed with the accused that he was not eligible to appear by phone and that he was required to be physically present to change attorneys and avoid a bench warrant.
After hearing the public defender’s response, the judge agreed. Judge Zidbeck stated that because the accused had been ordered to appear in court, he must be physically present in order to appoint new counsel.
The judge then issued a bench warrant for the accused. The new lawyer asked whether the matter could be discussed in chambers, a request that was quickly denied, drawing audible responses of “no” from the courtroom and some laughter.
After Judge Zidbeck finalized his ruling and ended the pretrial hearing, the new lawyer gathered her belongings and left the courtroom. As she exited, she could be heard saying, “This is insane!” The public defender then muttered that she could not believe the lawyer thought the request would be allowed.
Some may agree with the new lawyer and argue that phone authorization should be sufficient to change counsel and that denying the request delays justice. Others may conclude that, under the circumstances, requiring the accused to appear in person does not delay justice and is consistent with court procedure.
The case is expected to reconvene in the coming months once the accused is located or arrested, at which point the court will determine whether he may appoint new counsel.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
