The court warned the defendant of the dangers of self-representation at the 1

proceeding held on January 29, 2010. (See Doc. 293). The defendant has also been

advised against self-representation at his arraignment, (see Doc. 29), and at

hearings on his representation status (see Docs. 53, 91). He has also been informed

of the nature of the charges against him and the possible penalties at these

proceedings. (See Docs. 29, 53, 91, 293).

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL NO. 4:07-CR-0422

:

v. : (Judge Conner)

:

ALBERT LEO BERRETTINI, JR., :

and MARY ANN BERRETTINI, :

:

Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2010, upon consideration of the request

to proceed pro se, which defendant Albert Leo Berrettini made at a proceeding held

on January 29, 2010 (see Docs. 292, 293), and it appearing that defendant has made

a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to representation by

counsel, (see Docs. 292, 293), see also Buhl v. Cooksey, 233 F.3d 783, 789 (3d Cir. 1

2000) (“[T]he constitutional right of self-representation in a criminal case is

conditioned upon a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of the right to be

represented by counsel.”), and that defendant has properly asserted his right to

represent himself, (see Doc. 293), and the court concluding that “a defendant must

be allowed to represent him/herself when a proper request is made and counsel is

waived,” Buhl, 233 F.3d at 791 (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)), and

Case 4:07-cr-00422-CCC Document 296 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 2
 The court reiterates that, if defendant engages in serious misconduct, the 2

court may terminate his self-representation. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n.46. Serious

misconduct might include, but is not limited to, actions that obstruct or manipulate

the proceedings. The court may also consider evidence of dilatory motive as a basis

for denying defendant’s self-representation. United States v. Leveto, 540 F.3d 200,

207 (3d Cir. 2008). The court notes that it will not look favorably upon the

presentation of motions that have already been addressed by prior court orders, as

it doubts that defendant can have any purpose for re-raising such motions but to

delay or obstruct the proceedings.

 The court may direct the defendant to consult with standby counsel in 3

certain matters. McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984) (holding that the

defendant’s rights are “not infringed when standby counsel assists the pro se

defendant in overcoming routine procedural or evidentiary obstacles to the

completion of some specific task . . . that the defendant has clearly shown he wishes

to complete”).

the court noting that it “may terminate self-representation by a defendant who

deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct,” Faretta, 422 U.S. at

834 n.46, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The request to proceed pro se (see Doc. 293) is GRANTED.2

2. Stephen F. Becker, Esquire, is appointed as standby counsel for

defendant.3

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on both

defendants via an express mail service and standard post.

 S/ Christopher C. Conner 

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cr-00422-CCC Document 296 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 2