In what circumstances will a judge grant relief in 3 Criminal 6698?

Having reached this conclusion, however, we would be remiss in not pointing out that appointed trial counsel was not totally at fault in this case. With the benefit of hindsight, we note that part of the error was imposed[37 Cal.App.3d 563] by the court when it denied counsel's motion for funds to investigate the defendant's background in the Philippines. Had defendant's family been one of means and retained private counsel, undoubtedly such a step would have been taken, among others, bearing in mind the prosecution was asking for the death penalty. It is, of course, well established that there can be no equal justice where the kind of trial defense a man enjoys depends on the amount of money he has. (See Douglas v. California (1963), 372 U.S. 353, 354--357, 83 S.Ct. 814, 815--816, 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 813--814.) In effect, this is one of those rare, extraordinary cases where our system of criminal jurisprudence for the indigent broke down, revealing the built-in limitations of that system. For this reason also, relief must be granted.

The judgment in 3 Criminal 6698 is reversed.