Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 06- 30657

CA LV I N G RO SS Pet i t i o ne r- Appe l l ant v. LY NN COOPE R R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he M i ddl e D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 05- C V

- 01052

B e fo r e G A R W O O D , D E N N IS , a n dP R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * D e fe nda nt Cal vi n Gro s s w as i ndi c t e d f o ro ne c o unto f

po s s e s s i o n wi t h t he in te n t t o d is tr ib u te m a r ij u a n a a n do n e co u n t o f d is tr ib u tio n o f c o c a in e in L ou i si an a s ta te court
. I n pre- t ri alhea ri n gs rel ati n g t o both coun t s, G ross e x p l i c i t l yr ej e c t e dr e p r e s e nt a t i o n a n da g r e e dt o s e l f

- r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n h i s t wo se p a ra te tria ls o n th e tw o co u n ts. T h e re lev a n t co ll o q u ies in re sp e ct to h is se lfrepresentat i on w i t h t h e st ate c ou rtj u dg e are as f ol l ow s: [ C O U R T] : Y ou des i r e no tt o b e r epr es ent ed by

th e P u b l i c D efen d er; i s th a t correct? [ D E F E N D A N T ] : Y es. [C O U R T ]: Y o u d e sire to r e p re se n t y o u rs e lf? [ D E F E N D A N T ] : Y es. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 3, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk2 [ C O U R T] : So, yo u un der stan d t hatyo u have

t h e ri gh t t o c o unsel

. Y ou unde r s t and , und e ro urCons t i t ut i o n, yo u ha ve a ri ghtt o l e ga lco uns e la nd I h a v e a p p o in te d fo r y o u , th e P u b lic D efen d er , be c ause yo u di d nothave t he abi l i t y t o payf

orany at t or ney. [ D E F E N D A N T ] : Y es. [C O U R T ]: A n dyo u a re d esiri n g, a t th i s ti m e, to

rel ease t h em from an y f u rt h er obl i gati on on you r c ase? [ D E F E N D A N T ] : Y es. [C O U R T ]: A n dyo u are w a ivin g th e righ t t o

cou n sel; i s th a t correct? [ D E F E N D A N T ] : T o t h e P u bl i c D efen der. [ C O U R T ] : W el l , y ou w an tan att orney, you j u st

don ’ tw an tthem , is tha tw h at you’ re t el l i n g m e? [ D E F E N D A N T ] : Y es. [ C O U R T ] : T h en , you ’ l lneed t o f i l e a m ot i on becau se w e are not goi n g t o do i ton j u stno h eari n g ri gh there. So, you f i l e a ny m o t i on y o u ne e d t o f i l e a nd w e’ l lgetyou back i n here, becau se you need t o al l ege reasons w h y t h ey ne e d t o be o ut , b e c aus e I ’ m no tg o i ng t o j u stl ett h em out. I tdoesn ’ tw ork t hatw ay. [ D EF EN D AN T] : I do n’ tne e d t he m , I ’ l l j us tr e pr e s e nt

m y se lf. [C O U R T ]: O k a y , w e ll, th e n , y o u w ill n e e d to file

w h atever m ot i on s you d esi re. Att he s e c o nd p r e - t r i alhe ar i ng, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tt he n ha d t he f o l l o w i ng excha n ge w i t h G ross :

[ C O U R T ] : A l rig h t, M r. G ross , i t ’ s m y

u n derst an di n g t h at you d o not desi re th e P u b l ic D efen d er’ s O ff i ce to rep rese n t you ; i s th a t correct? [D E F E N D A N T ]: T h a t’ s corre ct.3 [C O U R T ]: W h y is t h a t? [ D EF EN D AN T] : H e ’ s po o rr e pr e s e nt at i o n. I , I m e an,

I sen t you the M oti on yo u tol d m e to s e nd t o y o u, I s e nti tt o y o u. [ CO U RT ] : And ho w do e s t hata ns w e rt he

qu est i on of

w h y you don ’ tw an tt h em t o r e pr e s e nty o u? [D E F E N D A N T ]: Y ou r H on or, w e a b ou t t o g o to tria l.

A s k h i m w h a th e k n o w a b o u tmy case besi des w h at t h e pol i ce r ep ort says. [ CO U RT ] : N o , no , I hav e put yo u und er oa t h.

I ’ m a s ki ng yo u. I nee d, fo rt he r e c o r d, f o ryo u t o t e l lm e w hy yo u do n’ tw ant h im to re p r e s e n t y o u , th a t’s a ll. [ D EF EN D AN T] : W e l l , t hi s m an ne ve r ac c e pta pho ne

c al l f r o m m e , yo u unde r s t and

. N ever, ne v er, y’ al lai n ’ tkn ow n ot h i n g abou tw h at’ s hap pen i n g, you kn ow w h at I’ m say i n g. Ju stt el lm e, ta k e th ir tyy e a r s , ta k e fo r ty-- n o , I c a n ’ t
. I me a n , h e s u p p o s e dt o b e my l aw yer. [ CO U RT ] : O ka y, he r e a r e y o urc ho i c e s . The

C ons t i t ut i on al l ow s you an at t or ney. I h a v e a p p o in t e dy o u o n e . Y o u d o n ’t g e t t o p ic k a n dc h o o s e . I f y o u c a n ’t af f ord one, I app oi n tyou one. S o , h e r e a r e y o u rch o ic e s a n dit doe sn’ tm at t ert o m e. You ca n have t h e P u bl i c D efen der’ s O f f i ce oryou ca n re p re se n t y o u rs e lf. [ C O U R T ] : W h i ch w ou l d you l i ke? [ D EF EN D AN T] : I do n’ tne e d no he l p. [ CO U RT ] : You d o n’ tne e d he l p?

O ka y. L ett h e P u bl ic D efen der be rel i eved of any f urt her obl i gat i on. LetM r . G r os s be hi s at t or ney. D efen se c ou n seli n f

orm ed the court t h at h e h ad ad vi sed G ross of t h e pen al t i es f ort he c harge s t hathe w as fac i ng and t hat he c oul d be fac i ng l i fe i n pri so n as an4

habi t ualof

fender

. C ounse lal so s t at ed t o t he cour tthatG r os s had r ef use d to s i gn a docu m en tcontai ni n g t h i s advic e concerni n g t h e charges. G ross , proceedi n g pro se , w as subseq u en t l y f ou n d gu i l t y by a j u ry on both coun t s i n t w o separate t ri al s. H e w a s s e n te n c e dto co n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e s o f 2 5 y e a r s a n d3 0 y e a r s fo rh is
m arij u an a an d cocai n e convi ct i on s r espect ivel y. O n d i recta pp eal , G ross argu ed th a t t h e tri a lcou rt erred i n de n yin g h i s ri gh t t o cou n sel an dord erin g h i m to pr o c e e d t o t r i alw i t ho uta v al i d waive r of h i s r i ghtt o c o uns e l

. The Lo ui s i ana C ou rtof

A pp eal s f

or t h e F i rstC i rcui taf f i rm ed both con vi ct i on s and sentences i n 2- 1 deci si on s. Ju dg e D ow n i n g di ssented f rom both deci si on s. H e concl u ded i n bo th de ci sion s th a t [ t ] h e rec ord shou l d c on t ai n som e i n di cat i on t h at t h e t ri alcourtt ri ed t o a s s e s s t he de fe nda nt ’ s l i t e r ac y, c o m pe t e nc y, und e r s t and i ng, a nd vo l i t i on be f

or e he ac c ept ed t he w aiverof c ounse l

. . . . O t hert han v o litio n , n o n e o f

t h e s e in d ic a tio n s a r e in th e in s ta n t r e c o r d , n o ris t he r e a ny s ho w i ng t he t r i alc o ur ta de qua t e l y i nf o r m e d t he d e fen d a n t of th e d a n g e r s a n dd is a d v a n t a g e s o f r e p r e s e n tin gh im se lf. G r o s s f i l e dw r i t s o f

c e r t i o r a r if

o rb o t h c o n v i c t i o n s w i t h t h e L o u i s i a n a S u p r e me C our t
. Th e Loui si ana Sup r em e Courtdeni ed t he pet i t i ons by vot es of 4- 3. Jus t i c e J o hns o n o f

t he L o ui s i anaSupr e m e C o ur tas s i gne d r e as o ns i n he rdi s s e nt f r o m de ni alo f

t he w r i t s . Relyi ng o n F a re ttav. Ca lif

o rn ia , 4 2 2 U .S

. 8 0 6 (19 7 5 ), Just i c e J ohnso n st at ed t hat
a r evi ew of

t he t r ansc r i ptm akes i tabunda n tl y cl eart hatt he t r i al c o ur tfai l e d t o as c e r t ai n w he t he rt he de fe nda nt ’ s w aive ro f hi s r i ght t o c o uns e lw as m ad e in t e l l i ge nt l y. The r e i s no i ndi c at i o n t hatt he t r i alc our tm ade a n at t em p t to ass es s t he def endant ’ s l i t er ac y, c o m pe t e n c y , u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a n dv o l i t i o n p r i o rt o a c c e p t i n gt he w aive ro f

r i ghtt o c o uns e l

. M o r e o ve r , t h e tr i alc o ur tm ad e no att em pt t o i n f

orm t h e defen da n tof the dan gers and di sadv an t ages o f s e lf-r e p r e s e n ta tio n . L ou i si an a v. G ross , 86 8 So

. 2d 20 , 21 ( La. 20 04 ) (Jo hns o n, J. , di s s e nt i n g f rom den i alof

t h e w ri t) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks om i t t ed). Th e U n ited S t ates5

Su pre m e Courtdeni ed G r os s’pet i ti ons f orw r i t s of

c er t i or ar ion Ja nuary 10 , 2 0 0 5
. G r o s s v . L o u is ia n a, 5 4 3 U .S . 1 0 5 6 (2 0 0 5 ). G ross f i l ed a 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 22 5 4 ap p l ic a tio n r a i singthe sam e a rg u m en ts den i ed on di rectappea lf o rb o t h c o nvict i on s. Th e m agis t rat e j u dg e rec om m en ded t h a th is a p p li c a t io n b e d e n ie d . T h e d is t r ic tc o u r ta d o p t e dth e m a g is t r a t e ju d g e ’s
r ec om m endat i ons and al so deni ed hi s appl i c at i on f ora CO A

. G r os s f

i l ed an ap p e a l

. W i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e m e r i t s , we r e m a n d e d t h e c a s e b a c k t o t he di st r i c tc our t“ f

orthe l i m i t ed pur pos e o f det er m i ni ng w het heri t s di sm i ss al i n vo lve dG ross ’ s coca i n e con victi on or h i s m a rij u a n a c onvi c t i on. ” T h e m a gistrate j udg e c l ar i f

i e d t hatt he de ni alo f t he ap pl i c at i o n r e l at e d t o bo t h c o nvi c t i o ns . The d is tr ic t c o u r t a d o p te dth e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’ s r e c o m m e n d a tio n a n dG r o s s tim e ly ap pea l ed. W e t h en gran t ed G ross a C O A o n t h e i ssue of “ w h et h er t h e di st ri ct
c o ur te r r e d b y all o wi ng G r o s s t o r e pr e s e nthi m s e l f a tt r i alw i t ho utf

i r s to bt ai ni ng h i s k n ow i n g a n di n tel l i ge n t w a ive r of his ri gh t t o co u n sel” a s i t rel a tes to bo th
c o n v ic tio n s . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW G ross ’app l i cat i on f

or s ect i on 225 4 rel i ef i s governed by the A n t i t error i sm and E f fective D eat h P enal t y Actof 1996 ( “A E D PA ” )

. U nderA E D PA , a f ede r al h a b ea s cou rt m a y n ot gra n t rel i ef t o a p r is on er se rv i n g a state se n ten ce w i th resp ect to an y claim adj u d i ca ted on the m erits i n a sta te cou rt un l ess the state
c our tr ul i ng “ r es ul t ed i n a dec i si on t hatw as c ont r ar y t o, ori nvolved an unreas onabl e a ppl i c at i on o f, c l ear l y e st abl i she d Feder al l aw , as det er m i ned by t h e Su prem e C ou rtof t h e U n i t ed S t ates. ” 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 225 4( d)( 1)

. Ast ate deci si on is “c o n tr a r yto ” c le a r lye s ta b lis h e dfe d e r a l la w if th e s t a t e c o u r t a p p lie s a ru le t h at i s “ sub st an t i al l y di f ferent f rom ” or “ contradi ct s” g overning S u prem e C ou rt pr e c e de nt , o ri f

t he s t at e c o ur tr e ac he s a de c i s i o n o ppo s i t e t hatr e ac he d b y t he S u p r e m e C o u r t o n a s e t o f m a te r ia llyin d is tin g u is h a b le fa c ts
. Wi l l i am s v. T aylor , 5 2 9 U .S

. 3 6 2 , 4 0 5 (20 0 0 ).6

Ade ci sion i n vo lve s an “unreas onabl e a ppl i ca ti on ” of fed era ll a w i f th e sta te
c o u r t “ c o r r e c tlyid e n tifie s th e g o v e r n in gle g a l ru le b u t a p p lie s it u n r e a s o n a b ly to the fa cts of a pa rti cu l a r p ri son er’ s ca se.” I d. a t 4 0 7 -0 8 . A n “u n r e a s o n a b le ap pl i cat i on ” of

federal la w m u stbe som et h i n g m ore t h an a m ere i n corr ect
a p p lic a tio n . I

d. a t 4 1 0 -1 1 (“[A ] fe d e r a l h a b e a s co u r t m a yn o t is s u e th e w r it
s i m pl y be c aus e t hatc o ur tc o nc l ude s i n i t s i nde pe nden t j u dgm e ntt hatt he
r e le v a n t s ta te -c o u r t d e c is io n a p p lie dcle a r ly e s ta b lis h e d fe d e r a l la w e r r o n e o u s ly or i n corre ctl y. R a th er, th a t ap p l i ca ti on m u st also be u n rea son a b l e.” ). T h e sta te
c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

fac t ar e ent i t l ed t o a pre sum pt i on o f c or r ec t nes s t hatc an be
re b u tte don ly b yclea r a n dco n v in cin gev id e n ce . 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 4 (e)(1 ). A N A L Y S IS I n F a r e tta , th e S u p rem e C ou rt co n sider ed “w h eth er a de fen d a n t i n a sta te
c r i m i n alt r i alha s a c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ghtt o pr o c e e d wi t ho utc o uns e lw he n he
vo l u n taril y a n di n tel l i ge n tl y e l ects to d o so ” un d er th e S i xth an dF ou rteen th A m en dm en t s. 422 U

. S

. at 807
. W h i l e every defen da n tha s a r i gh tt o proceed
w i t ho uta l awye r , t he c ho i c e t o pr o c e e d m us tb e m ad e “vo l unt ar i l y and i n tel l i ge n tl y.” Id

. F

a re ttaem phasi ze d t hat t he def endant m ustunders t and t hat h e is not j ust r el i nqui shi ng t he r i ght t o c ounse l but al so t he spe c i f i c be n efi ts
a s s o c ia te dw ith re p r e s e n ta tio n b yco u n s e l. Id

. a t835
. “W h en an accused
m an ages h i s ow n d efen se, h e rel i n qu i shes, as a pu rel y fact u alm att er, m an y of th e tr a d itio n a l b e n e fits a s s o c ia te dw ith th e r ig h t to c o u n s e l. F o r th is r e a s o n , in
or dert o re pre se nth i m se l f, the ac c use d m ust‘ know i ngl y and i nt el l i gent l y’f or go th ose reli n q u i sh ed be n efi ts. ” I d. In order t o ensu re t h at t h e choi ce i s vol u n t ary a n din te llig e n t, th e C o u r t n o te dt h a t “[a ]lth o u g h a d e fe n d a n t n e e dn o t h im s e lf h a v e th e s k ill a n d e x p e r ie n c e o f a la w y e r in o r d e r c o m p e te n tly a n din te llig e n tly t o c ho o s e s e l f

- r e pr e s e nt at i o n, h e sho ul d b e m ad e a w ar e o f t he da nge r s a nd di s ad va nt ag e s o f

s e l f

- r e pr e s e nt at i o n, s o t hatt he r e c o r d w i l le s t ab l i s h t hat‘ he k n ow s w h a t he i s d oin g a n d h is ch oice i s m a d e w i th ey es o p en . ’” I d. ( quo t i ng Ad a m s v . Uni t e d St a t e s ex r e l

. Mc Cann , 3 1 7 U .S

. 2 6 9 , 2 7 9 (19 4 2 )). T h u s , a7

defenda n tm u stnot onl y vol u n t ari l y gi ve u p t h e ri gh t t o representat i on bu tm u st do so aft erund e r s t and i ng t he da nge r s anddi s ad va nt ag e s o f s e l f

- r e pr e s e nt at i o n. S e eMo r a n v . B u r b in e , 475 U

. S. 412, 421 ( 1986) (n oti ng t hata v ol untar y, kn ow i n g an d i n t el l i gen tw ai ver “ m u stha ve been m ad e w i t h a ful la w aren ess of bot h t he na t ur e o f

t he r i ghtb e i ng ab and o ne d a nd t he c o ns e que nc e s o f t he d e c is io n to a b a n d o n it” ). In su b seq u en t cas e s, the C ou rt ha s esp eciall y e m p h a sized the n ee d to conveydan gers of

sel f

- representat i on bef ore a c ri m i n aldefen da n tf orgoes c o u n s e l att r i al

. I n Pa tt erson v. Il li n ois, 4 8 7 U .S

. 285 , 298 ( 198 8) , t h e C ou rt not ed that“r ec ognizi n g th e en orm ou s i m p orta n ce a n drole t h a t an attorn eyplays at a c rim inal t ri al , w e ha ve i m posed t h e m o s tr igo r o us r e s t r i c t i o ns o n t he i nf o r m at i o n t h at m u stbe convey ed to a defend an t , an d the procedu res t h at m u st b e o b s e r v e d , b e fo r e p e r m itt in gh im to w a iv e h is rig h t t o c o u n s e l a t t r ia l.” ( e m pha s i s a dde d)

. The Cour ti n Iow a v. T ovar sta te d th a t “[a ]s to w a ive r o f t r i al
coun sel , w e ha ve sai d that bef ore a defen da n t m ay be al l ow ed t o proceed pro se, he m us tb e w ar ne d s

pe c if i c al l y of t hehazar ds ahe ad

. ” 541 U

. S. 77, 88- 89 ( 2004) ( e m pha s i s a dde d)

. “W ar ni ngs o f t he pit fal l s o f

pr o c e e di ng t o t r i alw i t ho ut
cou n sel, [th e C ou rt] the refore said , m u st be ‘ ri go rou s[l y]’con ve ye d

. ” Id

. a t89 ( quot i ng Patt ers on , 4 8 7 U .S . a t 2 9 8 ). C on si st en tw i t h t h e C ou rt ’ s s t ro n ga d m on i t i on t h at t h e t ri alcourtm u st
m ak e sure t h e defe n d a n t is aw are of t h e consequ en ces of hi s w ai ver bef

ore ac c e pt i ng t he w aive r , w e r e ad F a re ttat o requ i re t he t r i alc o ur tt o i nqui r e a nd d e te r m in e if th e d e fe n d a n t in te llig e n tlyw a iv e dh is rig h t t o co u n s e l. Les tt he r e b e a c as e i n whi c h ade fe nda ntc l e ar l y as s e r t s t he r i ght t o de fe nd p r o s e ( s o t hatde ni alo f t he r i ghtw o ul d b e er r o r) w i t ho ut c l e a r l yw a iv i n gt h e r i g h tt o c o u n s e l( s o t h a t t h e r e r e ma i n s s o me ques t i on w h et hert he w aiverw as know i ng and i nt el l i gent) , a t r i al j udg e s ho ul d e nga ge i n adi al o gue w i t h s uc h ade fe nda nt , e xp l ai ni ng to h im th e co n s e q u e n c e s o f d e fe n d in gp r o s e . Far e t t a ad m on i shes t hatthe def

e nda ntm us tb e “ m ad e a w ar e o f t he ( ad va nt ag e s ) a nd d i sa d va n tag es o f self-rep rese n tati on . ”Weexplicitlyadopted and reproduced the relevant sectio n of The Benchbo okfor 1 Federal Judges (“The Benchb ook”) a s “a guide for questions the ju dgecan ask to conveythe disadvant ages the defen dant will likely suffer if he procee ds pro se.” Jones , 42 1 F .3d at 3 63-6 4 & n .3. The relevant sectio n of The Benchb ook can alsobe used as anin structiveguidefor state c ourtjud ge sin r es p ec ttoth eirid entic alco ns titutio nal obligatio nsunder F aret ta. We rec ognize tha ts om et imes less thorou ghwarnings haveal so b eenapp roved, b ut the trial j udge in this ca secle arlyf

ell b elowwh at isrequiredby Fare t ta, because he conveyed little , if any , of the inform ationrecom me n de d b yTh e B enchb ook. Seei d

. 8 C h a p m a n v . Un ite dS ta te s , 553 F. 2d 886, 892 ( 5t h C i r . 1977) ( quot i ng F a re tta , 42 2 U

. S. a t8 35 )

. I n Un ite dS ta te s v . J o n e s , w e fou n dth e d i stri ct cou rt fa i l ed to abi de by Far e t t a w h en iton l y w arn ed the defenda n tgen eral l y of t h e dan gers of
se l f

- r epr es ent at i on and w e t her ef or e v ac at ed t he c onvi c t i on. 421 F. 3d 359, 364- 65 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 5)

. H e r e , c o m pa r e d wi t h Jo n e s , t h i s ca se presents a st arker fai l ure t o a bi de by Far e t t a – t he t r i alc o ur tne ve rw ar ne d t he de fe nda nto f t he d a n g e r s o f s e lf-r e p r e s e n ta tio n a t a ll. 1 F u rth erm ore , w e h a ve stated tha t Far e t t a’ s p rogenya n d rel ated cases f l esh-out t h e fact ors w h i ch are to be w eigh ed [before a ccep ti n g a w a ive r of cou n sel]

. T h e cou rt m u st consi d er t h e defen da n t ’ s ag e an d ed u cat i on . . . an d other back groun d, ex p e rie n ce, an d cond u ct
. . . . T h e courtm u stensu re t hatt he w aive r i s no t t he r e s ul t o f c o e r c i o n o rm i s t r e at m e nto f t he de fe nda nt
. . . a nd m us tb e s at i s f i ed t hatt he a c c us e d un de r s t and s t he na t ur e o f

t he c har ge s , t he co ns e que nc e s of t he pr o c e e di ngs , a nd th e p r a c tic a l m e a n in go f th e rig h t h e is w a iv in g . McQ u een v. B lackb u rn , 7 5 5 F .2d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 7 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). H e r e , th e tr ia l ju d g e o n lya s s u r e dits e lf th a t t h e w a iv e rw a s v o lu n ta r yb u t d id
no tc o ns i de ra ny ba c kg r o und fac t o r s o re nga ge i n a ny di al o gue t o a s c e r t ai n t he de fe nda nt ’ s a w ar e ness of the c o ns e que nc e s o rpr ac t i c alm e ani ng o f w aivi ng
r e pr e s e nt at i on . Agai n, t he t r i alc o ur tc l e ar l y di d no ta bi de b y i t s o bl i ga t i o ns
u n der F a re tta , b e c aus e i tdi d noti nqui r e atal li nt o t he de fe nda nt ’ s b ac kg r o und b e fo r e a c c e p tin gh is w a iv e ro f tr ia l co u n s e l. F i n al l y, f

or w ai vers of consti t u t i on al ri gh t s gen eral l y, “ [i] th a s b een poi n t ed ou tt h at c ou rt s i n du l ge every reasona bl e presum pti on aga i n st w ai ver of9

fu n d a m e n ta l co n s tit u tio n a l rig h ts a n dth a t w e d o n o t p r e s u m e a c q u ie s c e n c e in th e lo s s of f

u n d a m en tal ri gh ts. ” Joh n son v. Zerbst , 3 0 4 U. S. 4 5 8 , 4 6 4 ( 1 9 3 8) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks o m i t t e d)

. “ For t hat r e as o n, i t i s t he St at e t hatha s t he bur de n o f

e s t ab l i s hi ng a va l i d waive r . . . . D o ubt s m us tb e r e s o lve d i n fav o rof p rotectingthe con sti tu ti on a lcl a i m . ” Mic h ig a n v . Ja c k s o n , 475 U

. S. 625, 633 (1 9 8 6 ). Th e S u p r e m e Co u r ti n T ovara nd Pat t e rs o n s pe c i f i c al l y e m pha s i z e d t he i m p orta n c e o f

c onveyi ng F

a re ttawa r n i n g s “r i g o r o u s ly” f o rde fe nda nt s r e que s t i ng to p r o c e e dp r o s e a t t r ia l. S e eIo w a , 5 4 1 U .S . a t 8 9 ; Pa tt ers o n , 4 87 U

. S. at298. Far e t t a al s o r e qui r e s t he t r i al c o ur t t o e va l uat e t he ba c kg r o und o f t he de fe nda nt b e fo r e a c c e p tin ga w a iv e ro f c o u n s e l. Mc Q u e e n , 7 5 5 F .2 da t 1 1 7 7 . W h ile th is
case w ou l d cl earl y w arran ta vacatur of a c o n v iction on di rectrevi ew , i ti s a
m u c h c l o s e rc a s e g iv e n o u rd e fe r e n c e t o s t a t e c o u r t s u n d e rAEDP A. N ever th e l ess, t h e t ri alcourtpl ai n l y di d n otw arn G ross abou tt h e dan gers of
se l f

- r epr es ent at i on nordi d i tev al uat e t he def endant ’ s bac kgr ound. B as ed on: ( 1) t he Suprem e Court ’ s pl ai n and cl ear l y- es t abl i she d adm oni t i on s th a tt he t r i al court rig orousl y w arn t h e pro se d e fen d a n t a b o u t th e d isa d v a n ta g e s o f se lfrepresentation a tt ri alan d to i n qu i re i n t o t h e defen da n t ’ s backgrou n d befor e accepti n g h is w a iver of coun sel ; ( 2) t h e t ri alcourt ’ s c om pl et e fai l u re t o w arn G ross i n resp ect to the da n ge rs of sel f- rep rese n tati on at tri a lan d it s com p l ete failure t o i n qu i re i n t o G ross ’backg roun d at al lbef ore acc epti n g h i s w ai ver of
c o uns e l ; a nd ( 3) t he g e ne r alpr e s um pt i o ns a ga i ns tf i ndi ng a va l i d waive rof consti t u t i on alri gh t s, w e concl u de that t h e st ate’ s deci si on t o f i n d a va l i d w ai ver o f c o u n s e l in th is ca s e w a s a n “u n r e a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n ” o f fe d e r a l la w . For th ese r eas ons , w e no w or dert he di st r i c tc our tt o g r antc ondi t i onal h abea s r el i ef

. W e R E V E R S E t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s j u dg m en t den yi n g h abea s r el i ef
an d R E M A N D t hi s c as e t o t hatc o ur tw i t h i ns t r uc t i o ns t o o r de rt he St at e of Loui s i anat o e i t he rg ive Calvi n Gro s s ane w t r i alo rr e l e as e hi m f r o m c us t o dy
w i t hi n 1 80 da ys o f

t he da t e o f

t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de ro n r e m and

.