That&#x27;s a separate argument for a more robust and effective public defender&#x27;s office.  This is arguing that there&#x27;s a right to obtain a counsel of choice, which is an argument that the justices said they have already rejected in oral argument [1].  The petitioner in this case is being represented by Howard Srebnick:  <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.royblack.com&#x2F;attorneys&#x2F;Howard&#x2F;Srebnick&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.royblack.com&#x2F;attorneys&#x2F;Howard&#x2F;Srebnick&#x2F;</a> and not a public defender.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.supremecourt.gov&#x2F;oral_arguments&#x2F;argument_transcripts&#x2F;14-419_h3ci.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.supremecourt.gov&#x2F;oral_arguments&#x2F;argument_transcri...</a><p>&quot;JUSTICE KAGAN: I might just be repeating myself, but ­­[...] I thought that, again, that distinction was the one specifically rejected in Monsanto.&quot;