Held: “We hold that while a defendant may invoke his or her self-representation rights..., the invocation must be unequivocal.
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 inadequacy 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 not minutes, not hours or even days, no inquiry, resulting in an admission of a technical "error." Harmless, no doubt.
The only problem with that story is how such a brilliant, Harvard graduated Federal District judge of the most complex cases could make such a flagrant and simple "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. Then he could unlawfully release this guy, who then lost experts, and delay the trial, the one he already delayed and delayed and delayed.
All done unlawfully. Both factually and without reason, or even law, as part of the plan to release Gary Winnick from my Federal subpoena. Sounds nutz, right? You ain't heard nothin' yet!
My subpoena remains outstanding on Gary. So I told him to keep his dogs at bay, again. The Marshals were ordered not to assist, to compel my witness, so I guess I have to place another reward. Since they are busy watching me watching them watching me watching them.
I feel so special. How you feeling?>
