dissenting.
For some reason, the majority discourses on objectivity and subjectivity, doubt and certainty, dicta and principles and holdings, when we have a straightforward question to answer: was the California Court of Appeal’s decision contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as declared by the United States Supreme Court, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73-76, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003), in holding that Nicole Bradley was not prejudiced by her absence from a critical proceeding where her attorneys were allowed to withdraw on the ground that they were not getting paid by Bradley’s father (as they were supposed to be) and new counsel was appointed in their stead; or that the trial court’s refusal to substitute another retained counsel for appointed counsel on the eve of trial, after more than three years of lawyer-churning, did not offend the Sixth Amendment. In my view, the court of appeal’s decision reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent because Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 746, 107 S.Ct. 2658, 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987), held that a defendant is not deprived of due process when she is excluded from a hearing that bears no “substantial relationship to [her] opportunity better to defend [her]self at trial.” And Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988), made clear that a defendant is not necessarily denied her right to counsel when she is represented by effective counsel, whether or not that counsel is her preferred counsel. As neither statutory ground for issuance of the writ appears, I would affirm.
I
One need not condone Bradley’s exclusion from the March 4, 1998 in-chambers hearing where Kerry Steigerwalt and Cynthia Dunlevy’s motion to withdraw was granted and Chris Andrian was appointed in their stead, to conclude that the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent. Bradley argued there, as she does here, that excluding her was error, that the error was structural, and that reversal of her convictions is required. However, as the Supreme Court has made clear, “th[e] privilege of presence is not guaranteed ‘when presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow.’ ” Stincer, 482 U.S. at 745, 107 S.Ct. 2658 (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106-07, 54 S.Ct. 330, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934)); see also Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 117 n. 2, 104 S.Ct. 453, 78 L.Ed.2d 267 (1983) (per curiam) (holding that defendant’s exclusion from ex parte, in-chambers communication between trial judge and juror was trial error subject to harmless error review); Campbell v. Rice, F.3d, 408 F.3d 1166, 1172-1173 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (so construing Supreme Court precedent).
The main subject of the hearing was Bradley’s father’s ability to pay trial fees. Bradley’s counsel were retained, but she was not paying them; her father was. Dunlevy represented that Bradley’s father was not providing sufficient funds to conduct a defense or pay experts. The court of appeal found that even if Bradley had been present, she could not have refuted this point because she had no personal *822knowledge about whether Dunlevy was being paid. Bradley points to no evidence to the contrary. In any event, she had no right to insist on counsel she could not afford. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. The other topic at the hearing was Dunlevy’s concern that someone (Bradley’s father) was having the prosecutor followed and investigated. Bradley had nothing to contribute to this discussion, either.
Thus, nothing transpired that dealt with the charges against Bradley, the substantive testimony of any witnesses, or anything else relating to Bradley’s guilt or innocence. Cf. Stincer, 482 U.S. at 745-47, 107 S.Ct. 2658 (holding that exclusion of a defendant from an ex parte in-chambers hearing at which the competency of two child witnesses was determined did not violate due process). Nor was Bradley’s ability to defend herself jeopardized because counsel who could try the case was appointed. Finally, as the court of appeal found, the trial judge’s ruling would have been the same no matter what Bradley might have said because of the age of the case and the parade of retained attorneys who had been stymied in their representation of Bradley by her father’s interference. In these circumstances, the California court’s conclusion is not an unreasonable application of Stincer.
II
Wheat controls Bradley’s contention that the trial court’s denial of her January 7, 1999 motion to substitute Jonathan Jordan for Chris Andrian violated her Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. “[WJhile the right to select and be represented by one’s preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth Amendment, the essential aim of the Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom [s]he prefers.” 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692.
Bradley had gone through a half-dozen retained lawyers when Andrian was appointed and before she sought — -thirty-five days in advance of trial — to change again to retained counsel. Two of her most recent sets of retained attorneys had not been paid enough to fund Bradley’s defense. Bradley did not know whether she personally had the resources to pay Jordan; Jordan indicated only that the financial relationship between him and Bradley’s father was not a concern “at this point.” Despite Jordan’s belief (also “at this point”) that he could be ready for trial in thirty-five days, his consultation up to that point had been minimal and he had not yet begun to tackle the materials, which were voluminous. Preparation would not be simple because this was still a special circumstances case. Given the historical interference with timely resolution of the case by hiring and firing of lawyers, the trial court was understandably concerned that Bradley (or her father) could again attempt to manipulate the system. The judge was also influenced by the fact that Andrian was court-appointed, had the assistance of well-qualified staff, and was prepared to try the case when set. The matter had been pending for three years, and Bradley had long since been warned that no further substitutions, and no further continuances, would be allowed. I cannot say that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied Wheat in upholding the trial court’s determination.