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. 08- 31047 UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. J O N A T H A N L E E V E R N IE R , D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 04- C R
- 20144 B ef ore G A R W O O D , ST E W A R T , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * D efe nda nt - Appe l l ant Jo nat han Lee Ver ni e r ap pe al s hi s c o nvi c t i o n for a federalcarj acking i n vi ol ati on of 18 U . S .C . § 211 9. Th e di st ri ctcourtden i ed Ve r n i e r ’ s r e q u e s tt o r e p r e s e n th i ms e l f a tt r i a l . A f

t e ra r e v i e w o f

t h e r e c o r d , we A F F I R M. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 9, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-31047 Document: 00511136764 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2010N o. 08- 31047

2 I. A. I n A pril2003, V er ni eresc aped f r om a C ol or ado st at e pr i so n w her e he w as s e r vi ng a 12
- ye ars e nt e nc e fo rca rt he f t . W hi l e hi t c h- hi ki ng i n Te xa s f o l l o w i ng hi s es c ape, he hi t c hed a r i de w i t h R an M es i ka, an I sr ael ici t i ze n w ho w as trav eli n g a cros s th e cou n try se llin gje w elry from a v a n . A ft er tra ve l i n g w i th M e s i ka f

o ra bo utf

o urda ys , Ver ni e rs t r uc k M e s i ka w i t h a t i r e i r o n, t he n ke pt h i m t i e du p i n t h e v a n u n t i lh e k i l l e d h i m a n dd u mp e dh i s b o d ya ta n u n k n o wn l oc at i on. Verni erc ont i nued t ow ar d Fl or i da i n t he van he st ol e from M es i ka, u s in gM e s ik a ’ s s to le n d e b it c a r da n did e n tific a tio n . I s r ae l il aw enf

o r c e m en t age nt s no t i f i e d t he FBI o f

t he l i ke l y ki dna ppi ng of M esi ka . Th e F B I t racked V erni er t o K ey W estan d ap preh en ded hi m af t er a d r a m a tic c h a s e a n dre s is ta n c e in M a y2 0 0 3 . M e s ik a ’ s b o d yw a s fo u n d in Loui si ana. B. V er ni e r was i nd i c t e d f o r c a rj a c ki ng r e s ul t i ng i n d e a t h i n v i o l a t i o n of 18 U . S . C . § 2119 . H e pl ead ed n otgu i l t y. B ef ore t ri al , t h e G overnm en trequested t h at V e rn ier be shack l ed d u ri n g t ri al . Th e G overnm en t ’ s m ot i on i n cl u ded assert i on s t h at V erni er had esc ap ed f rom pri son tw i ce, t h at h e w as able t o get o u t of h a n d cu ffs, tha t he reg u l a rl y p oss ess ed con trab a n dan dw ea p on s i n j a il, t h at he severel y da m aged a jail c e ll , t h at he res i st ed corr ect i on s of f i cers ’ a tt e m p ts to s e a r c h h is ce ll, a n dth a t h e in flic te dinju r ie s o n h im s e lf a n dto ld c o r r e c t i o ns o f

f i c i al s t hathe w ant e d t o ki l lhi m s e l f a nd h adt ri ed t o do s o . The G overnm en t al so assert ed that i ti n t ercept ed a tel eph on e cal li n w h i ch V erni er t ol d a thi rd pa rt y t h at h e i n t en ded t o di srupt hi s t ri alan d gen erat e soun d bit es fo rth e n e w s m e d ia . The di s t r i c tc o ur the l d ahe ar i ng o n t he m o t i o n. Ver ni e rw aive d hi s r i ght t o b e p r e s e n ta tt h e h e a r i n g . A tt h e h e a r i n g , t h e c o u r th e a r dt e s t i mo n yf r o m a Case: 08-31047 Document: 00511136764 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2010N o. 08- 31047

Th ec o urtor d er e ds kirtin gf orth ep ro s e cutio nan ddef e n s ec o un s el’ st ab l e sattri al, 1 and ordere d th at Vernier b e seated at defense coun sel’s tab le before the jury entered to hide the ankl e sh ackle s f

ro m view. Vernieralso ad dr es se d the co urt , st ating that because of hislimit ed legalknow led ge 2 he did not know he needed to file a formal motionto assert his right to self-repre sentation . The district court replied, “Ju st one more reaso n not to let you represe nt yourself because of your limited legal knowledge.” As Vernier atte mpted tocontinue, the di strict court stated thatit h a d ma deitsrulin g“onotheri ssu es .” 3 D e p u tyU .S . M a rs h a l an da n F B I a g e n t th a t V e rn ierh a dta u n te dM e si k a ’s fam i l y i n courtan d h a d a tte m pted t o neg ot i ate w i t h t h em or t o ext ortm on ey f r o m t h e m i n e x c h a n g e f o rt e l l i n gt h e m whe r e t o f i n dM e s i k a ’ s b o d y . T h e F BI agen ta l so test i f

i ed that t h e fact u alrec i t ati on s i n t h e G overnm en t ’ s m ot i on w ere ac c ur at e . The c o ur tc o nc l ude d t hat , b as e d o n Ver ni e r ’ s “ fai r l y c o ns t ant contenti ou s and def

i an tbeh avior” a n d the court’ s c on cerns abou tt h e safet y of p erso n s i n the cou rtroom , h e w ou l dbe sh a ck l ed at tri a lbu t t h a t t h e res train ts w ou l d be h i dd en f

rom t h e j u ry as m u ch as possibl e. 1 C. O n the f i rst m orn i n g o f tri a l , V ern i er a d vised th e cou rt th a t h e w a n ted to r e pr e s e nthi m s e l f

a tt r i al . The c o ur tt o l d Ve r ni e rt hati tw as c o nc e r ne d a bo ut h is h is to r yo f d is r u p tiv e b e h a v io ra n dth a t d is r u p tio n s o f th e tr ia l co u ldre s u lt i n hi s r em ovalf

r om t he c our troom . V erni err es ponded t hatr epo r t s of hi s bad b e h a v io rw e r e “r u m o r s ” a n d“a s y s te m a tic p lo t” b yja ile r s to d is c r e d it h im . The c o ur tde ni e d Ve r n i er’ s reques tt o pr o c e e d pro se at t ri al . Th e court ci t ed “s everalfact ors”in d en yi n g t h e request. Fir st , t h e courtnoted t h at V erni er w as as se r t i ng hi s r i ghtt o s el f

- r epr es ent at i on o n t he m orn i n g of t r i aland had neverr ai se d t he i ss ue be f or e t he c our t . Sec ond, t he c our tnot ed t hatV er ni erhad n otexpressed an y di ssat i sfact i on w i t h hi s app oi n t ed la w yer. Th i rd, t h e court not ed t hatV er ni erhad w aived hi s ow n appear an ce a t th e r es t r ai nthear i ng. Fi nal l y, t he c our ts ai d i t s dec i si on w as “bas ed o n al lt he i nf or m at i on” t hatw as ent er ed i nt o t he r ec or d att he r es t r ai nthear i ng. 2 Case: 08-31047 Document: 00511136764 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2010N o. 08- 31047

4 V e r n ie r ’s a p p o in t e dla w y e r o b je c t e do n h is b e h a lf, a r g u in gth a tV e r n ie r ’s assert i on of

t h e ri gh tt o represent him sel f w as ti m el y an d w as not i n t erposed f or t he purpo se of

del ay be c ause V er ni erw as r eady t o pr oc ee d w i t h t r i alt hatday. The G o ve r nm e ntde c l i ne d t o j o i n the obj ec t i o n a nd r e fe r r e d t he c o ur tt o t he e v id e n c e p r e s e n te din th e m o tio n to s h a c k le V e r n ie r . The G o ve r nm e nta l s o pr e s e nt e d ev i de nc e re ga r di ng Ver ni e r ’ s a t t ac k o n a pr i s o n g uar d a nd a t t e m ptt o e s c ap e f r o m j ai lj u std ays pr i o rt o t r i al . The G o ve r nm e nt ’ s w i t ne s s t e s t i f i e d t hatV e r ni e rw as ar m e d wi t h as hankdur i ng t he escape att em pt an d t h at V erni er sai d he h ad been pl an n i n g t h e att em pt f or t h ree ye a rs. A ccord i n g to th e w i tn ess , V ern i er boa sted th a t h e w a s n ot go i n g t o go to p ri son qu i etl y b u t w ou l d“g o ou t i n a b l oo d y co n fron tati on ” w i th ou t rega rd to w hom he w oul d have t o ki l l . The G ove r nm entar gued t hatV er ni er ’ s r eal i n t en t i on i n requesti n g t o represent h i m sel f w as to d isru pt hi s t ri alan d to t ry t o e s c ap e . The c o ur ts ai d t hatt he e vi de nc e a bo utVer ni e r ’ s r e c e nte s c ap e at t em ptadded suppor tt o i t s dec i si on nott o a l l ow s el f

- r epr es ent at i on and “ t hat t h ere are ot h er th i n gs besi des t i m el i n ess” sup porti n g t h e deci si on . Th e court n oted i ts “ d i scre ti on to ru n an ord erly cou rtroom . ” The c as e pr o c e e de d t o t r i al . The j ur y c o nvi c t e d V e r ni e ras cha r ge d. The c our tal l ow ed Verni ert o r epr es enthi m se l f att he s ent enc i ng hear i ng, al t hough ap poi n t ed coun selw as present. Th e cou rt d en i ed a requ estf or a dow n w ard de pa r t ur e a nd sent e nc e d Ve r ni e rt o l i fe i n pr i s o n, w i t h t he t e r m t o r un consecutivel y t o each of t w o ot h er s en t en ces an d concu rrently to a t h i rd se nt enc e. Verni erf

i l ed a t i m el y pro se not i c e o f appe aland i s r epr es ent ed by a p p o in te da p p e lla te co u n s e l. II. V erni er’ s onl y contenti on on ap pea li s t h at he shou l d h ave b e e n al l ow ed t o r e pr e s e nthi m s e l f

att r i al . H e ar gue s t hatt he co ur tdeni e d hi s m o t i o n o n t he basi s of u n t i m el i n ess an d t h at hi s r equ estw as t i m el y u n der C h ap m an v. Un i t ed Case: 08-31047 Document: 00511136764 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/09/2010N o. 08- 31047

5 S t ate s , 553 F . 2d 886 , 895 ( 5th C i r. 197 7) . H e asser t s t h at t h e re w e re n o ot h er va l i d g r ou nds f

o rde nyi ng hi s r e que s t . The G o ve r nm e ntc o nt e nds t hatt he c o ur t ’ s de ni alo f

s e l f

- r e pr e s e nt at i o n was no tb as e d o n unt i m e l i ne s s b utr at h er w as j u st i f

i ed by am pl e ev i den ce i n di cat i n g t h at V erni er’ s r equ estw as i n t en ded to g iv e h im th e ch a n c e to d is r u p t h is tr ia l a n dto a tt e m p t a n o th e re s c a p e . Thi s c o ur t r e vi e w s c l ai m s c o nc e r ni ng t he r i ght o f s e l f

- r e pr e s e n t ati on de n o v o . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 4 2 1 F .3d 3 5 9 , 3 6 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e di st ri ct c o u r t’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s to s u p p o r t it s ru lin ga r e re v ie w e dfo r c le a r e r r o r . Id . at 36 1. An i m pr o pe rde ni alo f t h e ri gh t o f

s e l f

- r e pr e s e nt at i o n, i f e s t ab l i s he d, r e q u ir e s re v e r s a l w ith o u t fu r th e ra n a ly s is fo rh a r m le s s e r r o r . Uni t e d S t at e s v. Maj ors , 3 2 8 F .3 d7 9 1 , 7 9 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). Acom p eten t cri m i n a lde fen d a n t ha s a S i xth A m e n d m e n t ri gh t t o r e pr e s e nthi m s e l f

a tt r i ali f

he kno w i ngly c ho o s e s t o do s o a nd waive s hi s r i ght to co u n s e l. Jon es , 4 2 1 F .3 da t 3 6 3 ; s e ealso 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 4 . T h e rig h t to se lfr e p r e s e n ta tio n , h o w e v e r , is n o t a b s o lu te . I ndi anav . Edw ar ds , 128 S. C t . 2379, 2384 ( 2008) . The r i ghti s f or fei t ed byob st r uct i on, di sr upt ive c onduct , orby a b u s in gth e d ig n ityo f th e co u r tr o o m . I d. ; se e a lso F

a re ttav. Ca lif

o rn ia , 4 22 U . S. 8 0 6 , 8 3 4 n .4 6 (1 9 7 5 ). “E v e n a tth e tr ia l le v e l, t h e r e fo r e , t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’s i nt e r e s ti n e ns ur i ng t he i nt e gr i t y ande f f i c i e nc y o f

t he t r i al att i m e s o ut w e i ghs th e d e fe n d a n t’ s i n teres t i n actingas h i s ow n l a w ye r. ” Mar t i ne zv . Cour tof A pp ea l of Ca l. , F

o u rth A pp ella te D ist. , 5 2 8 U .S . 1 5 2 , 1 6 2 (20 0 0 ). U nde rt he g e ne r alpr i nc i pl e a nno unc e d by t he Supr e m e Cour ti n F a re tta , Edw ar ds , a nd Mart i n ez , t he r i ght of se l f

- r epr es ent at i on i s l i m i t ed by t h e t r i al c o ur t ’ s r e s po ns ibi l i t y t o m ai nt ai n o r de ra nd s af e t y and t o pr e ve ntdi s r upt i o n a nd d e la y . Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Lo ng , 5 97 F. 3d7 20 , 7 26 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 01 0) (upho l di ng den i al o f th e ri gh tt o sel f

- representat i on w h ere t h e defen da n tha d been d is r u p t iv e in p r e t r ia l p r o c e e d in g s ). W e h a v e n o t e din p a s s in gth a ta d e fe n d a n t ’s requ estt o r e p resen thi m sel f at t ri alm ay be rej ect ed i f i ti s i n t en ded t o cause Case: 08-31047 Document: 00511136764 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/09/2010N o. 08- 31047

6 d e la yo rs o m e ta c tic a l a d v a n ta g e . Chapm an , 55 3 F . 2 dat 89 5 . O th er circu i ts h ol d that a t ri alcourtm ay den y t h e ri gh tof sel f

- representat i on w h en evi den ce in d ic a te s th a t t h e d e fe n d a n t in te n d s to u s e th e r ig h t to d e la y o r d is r u p t th e tr ia l. S ee , e.g ., Un itedS ta tes v. S m ith , 413 F. 3d 1253, 1280–8 1 ( 1 0 th C i r. 2005) (hol di ng t hat t he def

endant ’ s i nso l entbe havi ors how ed t hathe w as pl ayi ng “ c at a n dm o u s e ” w ith th e co u r t b y r e q u e s tin gto re p r e s e n t h im s e lf); B u h lv. Cooksey , 233 F . 3d 783 , 797 ( 3d C i r. 200 0) (n ot i n g t h at det e rm in in gw h et h er apro se defenda n ti n t en ds on l y di srupti on an d del ay i s t h e ki n d of deter m i n ati on di st ri ct c o ur t s m us tm ak e r o ut i ne l y, b utho l di ng t hatt he c o ur tdi d no tm ak e a s uf f i c i e nt in q u ir y); s e eals o Uni t e d S t at e s v. G e orge , 56 F. 3d 1078, 1084 ( 9t h C i r . 1995) (h ol di n g t h at t h e defenda n t ’ s pre- t ri al cond u ct , i n cl u di n g t w o escapes , sh ow ed th a t h is re q u e s t t o re p r e s e n t h im s e lf w a s m a d e fo rp u r p o s e s o f d e l a y); seealso Un i t ed Stat es v. A kers , 215 F . 3d108 9, 109 7– 99 ( 10 t h C i r . 2 00 0) ( ap pr o vi ng t he deni alof

s el f

- r epr es ent at i on w her e e vi denc e, i ncl udi ng t he def endant ’ s pre - t r i al fli g h t, su p p o rte d th e d istr ict co u rt’s co n clu sio n th a t th e m o tion fors e lfre p re se n ta tion w a s in te n d e dto d e la yth e p ro ce e d in g s). In t h i s c ase, i f t h e di st ri ctcourtha d ba sed i t s den i alof sel f

- representat i on sol el y on t h e t i m i n g of V erni er’ s r equ est , t h e courtl i kely w ou l d hav e erred un der Chapm an , w he r e w e he l d t hata r e que s tf o r s e l f

- r e pr e s e nt at i o n i s t i m e l y i f m ad e b e fo r e t h e ju r yis s e le c te d . Se eChapm an , 5 5 3 F .2 da t 8 8 7 . T h e co u r t a r g u a b ly al so w oul d have er r ed had i tbas ed i t s r ul i ng onl y on V er ni er ’ s l i m i t ed l egal k n o w le d g e . S ee F

a re tta , 422 U . S. at 836 (i ndi c at i ng t hata de fendant ’ s t ec hni c al k n o w le d g e is n o t r e le v a n t t o h is rig h t t o co n tr o l h is d e fe n s e ). B u t ne i th er re a son w a s th e so l e b a sis for t h e d i stri ct cou rt’ s refu sa lto al l o w Ver ni e rt o r e pr e s e nthi m s e l f. I ns t e ad , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tb as e d i t s r ul i ng pri m ari l y on t h e sam e ev i den ce that con vi n ced t h e cou rtto shackle V erni er f or t ri al . T h at un contest ed evi den ce i n di cat ed t h at V erni er posed a ri sk of vi ol en ce ande s c ap e , t hathe w as de f i anta nd t r o ubl e s o m e , a nd t hathe b o as t e d t hathe Case: 08-31047 Document: 00511136764 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/09/2010N o. 08- 31047

7 w ant e d t o g o o utin a bl o o dyc o nf r o nt at i o n, t o di s r upthi s t r i al , a nd t o m ak e n e w s . M oreover, t h e G overnm en t presented addit i on al t est i m on y on t h e dayof t ri alt h at V erni er had att em pted a vi ol en tesc ap e f rom j ai li n t h e 48 h ou rs p rece d i n g th e tri a l . T h e G ov ern m en t p oin ts o u t th a t V ern i er’ s esca p e a ttem p ts o ro t he rdi s r upt i o ns c o ul d ha ve de l ay e d t he t r i ala nd h i nde r e d t he pr o s e c ut i o n, w h i ch rel i ed on t h e t est i m on y of w i t n esses f

rom acros s t h e coun t ry an d overseas. T h e c o u r tc o n s id e r e d th is e v id e n c e a s a n a d d it io n a l r e a s o n to d e n yV e r n ie r ’s requ estt o represent h i m sel f. Th u s, t h ere w as no cl ear err or i n t h e di st ri ct court’ s f i n di n gs. III . Ba s e do n o u rr e v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e a n dt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s r e a s o n i n g , we c o nc l ude t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no t e r r w he n i tf o und t hatVer ni e r ’ s e s c ap e at t e m pt s a nd r i s k o f v i o l e nc e posed a t h rea tt o t he c o ur t r o o m pr o t o c o lo f t he tria l. T h e re for e , V e rn ierw a s n o t u n co n s t it u t ion a ll yd e n ied h is rig h t to se lfr e p r e s e n ta tio n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , h i s c o n v i c t i o n i s A F F I RMED. Case: 08-31047 Document: 00511136764 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/09/2010