Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_18-cr-00035/USCOURTS-akd-3_18-cr-00035-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis Holger Eklund
Defendant
Louis Holger
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

 LOUIS HOLGER EKLUND,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISCHARGE STANDBY COUNSEL

Before the Court at Docket 389 is defendant Louis Holger Eklund’s pro se filing 

entitled “Objection & Showing of Severe Incompetence of Standby Counsel, Lance 

Christian Wells, & Motion for an Order for Lance Christian Wells to Withdraw from this 

Case Due to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.” No response from the government is 

necessary.1 

In January 2020, Mr. Holger requested that he be allowed to represent himself. 

After conducting a Faretta inquiry, the Court granted the motion and appointed Mr. Wells 

(who had been representing Mr. Holger) to act as standby counsel. Mr. Holger has 

expressed dissatisfaction with Mr. Wells, and the instant motion seeks an order 

withdrawing Mr. Wells from acting as standby counsel.2 

1 See Docket 197 (text order stating that “the government need not respond to any filing by the 

defendant unless the Court orders a response.”).

2 Docket 389 at 4.

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 394 Filed 12/09/20 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS, United States v. Eklund

Order Re Motion to Relieve Standby Counsel

Page 2 of 4

This Court has the authority to order standby counsel over a defendant’s

objection.3 The right to self-representation is not “‘a license not to comply with relevant 

rules of procedural and substantive law,’ and a trial court may terminate selfrepresentation where a defendant ‘deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist 

misconduct.’”4 Based on observations of Mr. Holger both in his writings to the Court and 

in his courtroom behavior on and off the record, the Court has considerable concern about

Mr. Holger’s ability and willingness to comply with this Court’s orders during trial both as 

to the scope of permissible evidence and argument and as to the conduct expected of 

him in the courtroom.5 “The right of self-representation is not a license to abuse the 

dignity of the courtroom”6 and can be forfeited if a defendant is not “able and willing to 

abide by rules of procedure and courtroom protocol.”

7

The Court will retain Mr. Wells as standby counsel in this case for three reasons: 

First, Mr. Wells is available to facilitate Mr. Holger’s review of discovery while he is in 

custody.

8 Second, Mr. Holger will have an experienced attorney to consult with regarding

3 Cooks v. Newland, 395 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 

806, 834 n.46 (1975)).

4 Cooks, 395 F.3d at 1080 (quoting Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n.46 (1975)).

5 See United States v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669, 674 (9th Cir. 1989) (defendant’s pretrial activity can 

be relevant “if it affords a strong indication that the defendants will disrupt the proceedings in the 

courtroom”); Hatten v. Yates, Case No. CV 06-3751-DMG, 2011 WL 6941698, at *14 (C.D. Cal. 

June 15, 2011) (finding trial court’s decision to revoke defendant’s pro se status reasonable “in 

light of the significant record of petitioner’s disruptive and hostile pleadings and courtroom 

behavior, and refusal to obey the trial court’s repeated admonitions”). 

6 Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n.46.

7 McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 173 (1984). See United States v. Engel, 968 F.3d 1046, 

1050–51 (9th Cir. 2020) for a discussion of courtroom behavior that can trigger revocation of 

self-representation.

8 See Docket 384 (“Order Regarding Motion to Compel Standby Counsel to Produce 

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 394 Filed 12/09/20 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS, United States v. Eklund

Order Re Motion to Relieve Standby Counsel

Page 3 of 4

appropriate behavior in court, which may increase the odds of Mr. Holger being allowed 

to continue to represent himself and will “relieve the judge of the need to explain and 

enforce basic rules of courtroom protocol.”9 Third, this case has been pending since 

March 2018 with Mr. Holger detained in custody, and Mr. Holger has expressed that he 

would like to have a trial as soon as possible; if the Court finds cause during trial to revoke 

Mr. Holger’s pro se status, it will have standby counsel who can step in to complete the 

trial and avoid the delay of having new counsel prepare for trial.10 

Mr. Wells represented Mr. Holger in this case prior to Mr. Holger’s request to 

represent himself. The Court has also observed Mr. Holger and Mr. Wells together in the 

courtroom. Mr. Wells is the local attorney best suited to serve as standby counsel in this 

case because he is the most familiar with this case and because of his observed ability 

to work with Mr. Holger in the courtroom.

Of course, so long as Mr. Holger retains his pro se status, he need not make use 

of standby counsel if he so chooses. 

Evidence”).

9 Savage v. Estelle, 924 F.2d 1459, 1462 (9th Cir. 1990). Accord Frantz v. Hazey, 533 F.3d 724, 

740 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[S]tandby counsel may assist in two ways: (1) ‘in overcoming routine 

procedural or evidentiary obstacles to the completion of some specific task, such as introducing 

evidence or objecting to testimony, that the defendant has clearly shown he wishes to complete,’

and (2) by ‘help[ing] to ensure the defendant’s compliance with basic rules of courtroom protocol 

and procedure.’”) (quoting McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984)). 

10 Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n.46 (stating that courts may appoint standby counsel over the 

defendant’s objection “to be available to represent the accused in the event that termination of 

the defendant’s self-representation is necessary.”); Engel, 968 F.3d at 1051–52 (noting that after 

the trial court revoked the defendant’s pro se status during trial, standby counsel stepped in and 

cross-examined government witnesses until the court reinstated the defendant’s pro se status); 

United States v. Mack, 362 F.3d 597, 599 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that it was “regrettable” that no 

standby counsel was appointed for an “obstreperous” and “contemptuous” pro se defendant 

because no one was available to step in as counsel when the defendant was excluded from the 

courtroom during trial).

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 394 Filed 12/09/20 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS, United States v. Eklund

Order Re Motion to Relieve Standby Counsel

Page 4 of 4

In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion at Docket 389 is DENIED. 

DATED this 9th day of December, 2020, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 394 Filed 12/09/20 Page 4 of 4