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 from my Federal subpoena.
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.
A FLAPDOODLE
FAQ 1 - FAQ 2 - CONTEXT
TWITTER
(CENSORED 03.26.2023)
They all ignored their oaths, the facts, the rules, the laws, the 5th and 6th amendment and proceeded forward with a selective persecution in a secret hearing.
"Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel
With the above in mind, could you please help and make a small donation.
TO DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE BELOW.
MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE.
LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE.
TERMS OF USE
DISCLAIMER
PRIVACY POLICY
TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE.
 |
