In Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 3-4, 103 S. Ct. 1610, 75 L. Ed. 2d 610 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a meaningful relationship between an accused and his counsel. In Morris, an indigent defendant had a unilateral falling out with his attorney caused not by any identifiable objective misconduct by the attorney, but by: (1) Slappy's dissatisfaction with a switch from one public defender to another; (2) Slappy's opinion that the new public defender had not had enough time to prepare for trial, and; (3) by the second public defender's assessment that Slappy had no "defense to the charges." Because of this unilateral falling out, Slappy refused to participate in his own defense. In affirming the denial by the district court of Slappy's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court rejected Slappy's claim that a defendant has the right to a certain "rapport" with his attorney.