Held: “We hold that while a defendant may invoke his or her self-representation rights..., the invocation must be unequivocal.
See Unequivocal
According to one attorney, "This is a confusing and fuzzy area of law.
A defendant can place conditions on self-representation and still make an unequivocal demand: e.g., “If I do not get new counsel, I want to represent myself.” Id.
But, if the defendant states, “If I am appointed standby counsel, I would like to represent myself,” then he has made an equivocal demand and Faretta isn't triggered. Id. (?!?) {As intuitive as “conditions precedent” in Property law.}
The absurdity of this area of law is that these are usually indigent, uneducated clients who are struggling to speak to the court – often through a translator. Deciding Faretta on phrase placement by an inarticulate defendant is, essentially, a quiet way of avoiding the train wreck of self-representation: not a bad thing from a policy perspective, but a tough rule to understand.
How to Use: Those who represent indigent defendants in federal court will wince in recognition at the Mendez-Sanchez fact pattern. In addition to its primary holding on Faretta invocation, the decision also has an interesting and lengthy discussion on the frequently-misunderstood (by clients) “right” to new counsel. Id. at *4-*6. Judge Gould recites the three Prime factors in reviewing such motions:
1. the timeliness of the motion,
2. the adequacy of the court's inquiry, and
3. whether the conflict was so great “as to result in a complete break-down in communication and consequent inability to present a defense.”
Id. at *4.
In Judge Matz' case it was minutes, not hours or even days, resulting in an admission of a technical "error." Harmless, no doubt.
The only problem with that story is how such a brilliant Harvard graduate, elite unit, judge could make such a flagrant "error" as the fundamental right to the assistance of counsel.
ANSWER: He had to violate the right, in able to force this HACK on Killercop, as seen here.
All done unlawfully. Both factually and without reason, or even law, as part of the plan to release Gary Winnick and others from my Federal subpoenas.
Sounds nutz, right? You ain't heard nothin' yet!
My subpoena remains outstanding. The Marshals won't assist, to compel my witness, so I guess I have to place another reward.
Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government," Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 86 (1st Cir. 2004)
CONTACT
COLLECT A BOUNTY
COLLECT A REWARD
FILE A COMPLAINT
TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE
(c) 1995-2026
All Rights Reserved
