FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 14, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 73 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 26 9- CR-TWT-9-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RILEY GRAHAM, a.k .a. Ril ey

W il li am s, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 1 4, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Ri le y Grah am was i nd ic te d a lo ng wit h s ev en te en ot he r pe op le ina m ortg ag efrau d c as e. He was t rie d s ep arat el y fro m hi s co -d efen da nt s b ecau se he in si st edon 1 pr oc eed in g p ro se— atlea stun ti l t he ve ry day hi s tria l b eg an . After afou r-d ay tri al , at wh ic h h e was rep res en te d b y co un se l, a ju ry

returne d agu il ty verd ic t o n a ll
co un ts , andhe was c on vi ct ed . His app eal was c on so li da te d wi th hi s co de fen da nt s’ app eal s. See Fed . R. App . P. 3(b )(2 ). W e are is su in g t hi s s ep arat e op in io n i n Gra ha m ’s cas e in ord er t o a dd res s t he th ree i ss ue s h e h as rai se d, wh ic h are d is ti nc t fr om

th e is su es hi s co -d efen da nt s h av e rai se d.

I. The jury’ s g ui lt y

ve rd ic t ag ai ns t Gra ha m

was o n a ll of t he off

en se s ch arg ed ag ai ns t h im

in th e th irdsupe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t: con sp ira cy to co m m itwire frau d in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 37 1 a nd13 43 (co un t 1 5) ; wi re fraudin vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 43 an d 2 (co un ts 16 –1 8, 4 6 & 47 ); c on sp ira cy to co m m itm ai l fr au d, to co m m itwire frau d, t o m ak e fal se cred itap pl ic at io ns , to lau nd er m on ey , andto
en ga ge in m on et ary tra ns act io ns in pro pe rty deri ve d fr om sp eci fie d u nl awfu l act iv ity in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 37 1, 1 34 1, 1 34 3, 1 01 4, 1 95 6( a)(1 )(A)(i ) &
Of the se ventee n other pe ople named in that third super sedingindictment with Graha m, 1 twelve we re trie d toge ther, ten w ere convicted, a nd nine appe aled tog ether : Phil lip Hill, M arc us Alcindor, Rober

t Powers, Christine L auder mill, David Van Mersbe rg en, F red F arme r, David Thomas, L eslie Rector , and B arba ra B rown. That consolidated appe al is addre ssed in a sepa rate opinion issued today , which includes a detailed r ecitation of the fac ts underlying the mortg ag e fra ud scheme that led to Gra ham’s indictment and c onvictions. See United States v. Hill, No. 07-14602 (11th Cir. 2011). This opinion addre ssing Gr aham’ s appea l sets forth only those fac ts that are rele vant to the three issues he has r aised. 2(B)( i), and19 57 (co un t 1 9) ; m ai l fr au d i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 41 an d 2

(co un t 3 8) ; en ga gi ng in m on et ary tra ns act io ns inpro pe rty deri ve d fr om sp eci fie d
un la wfu l ac ti vi ty in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 1 95 7 a nd2 (c ou nt s 8 5– 90 & 9 4) ; an d m on ey

lau nd eri ng in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 56 (a)( 1) , (A)(i ), & (B) (i) an d 2 (c ou nt s 1 79 & 1 80 ). Co un ts 15 –1 8 i nv ol ve d afrau du le nt ly obt ai ne d l oa n fr om Cen tru m Fin an ci al Serv ic es , andth e o th er co un ts aro se fro m va rio us lo an s o n res id en ti al real est at e. Grah am was c on vi ct edan d s en te nc edto 60 m on th s im pr is on m en t o n c ou nt s 1 5– 19 , 46 , and47 , run ni ng co nc urren tl y wit h a 12 0- m on th sen te nc e o n t he rem ai ni ng co un ts , 38 , 85 –9 0, 9 4, 1 79 , and18 0, fo r a to ta l o f 12 0 m on th s. 2 Grah am ch al le ng es hi s co nv ic ti on s, co nt en di ng th at(1) hi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el
an d due pro ces s ri gh ts were v io la te d b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d h is reque st fo r a co nt in ua nc e o n t he fir stda y of t ria l; (2) hi s due pro ces s ri gh ts were v io la te d be cau se he ap pe aredbe fo re the jury in anora ng e jail su itin st eadof i n s tre et cl ot he s; an d (3 ) hi s ri gh t t o afai r tr ia l was vi ol at edbe cau se th e d is tri ctco urt ad m it te d “ ex pe rt” tes ti m on y by lay wit ne ss W il li am

Key , a fo rm er cl os in g a tt orne y who ha d p le ad edgu il ty to p art ic ip at in g i n fr au du le ntm ortg ag e tr an sa ct io ns .
Gra ham has be en imprisoned since 2003 and is servinga 20-year sentenc e for

an ea rlier 2 drugoffe nse convic tion in Mi chig an. His sentenc e in the pre sent ca se runs c onsecutive to that ear lier one. 3II.

Grah am m ad e h is in it ia l ap pe aran ce i n t he di st ric t co urt o n Au gu st11 , 20 06 , whe n h e p le ad edno t g ui lt y . On Aug us t 2 3, 2 00 6, Gra ha m to ldth e co urt h e wan te d t o p ro ceedpro se, a ndth e n ex t d ay th e co urt ap po in te d S co ttSem rauas st an d- by tria l co un se l fo r Grah am . Duri ng a Sep te m be r 8, 2 00 6 p re-t ria l 3
co nf eren ce, t he di st ric t co urt ju dg e em ph at ic al ly w arn edGrah am ab ou t t he ris ks of pr oc eed in g p ro se a ndex te ns iv el y qu es ti on edhi m

ab ou t h is ab il it y

to do so . The tri al was s pe ci al ly set f

orAug us t 2 0, 2 00 7. Ina Sep te m

be r 25 , 20 06 st atus co nf

eren ce b efo re a m ag is tra te jud ge , th at jud ge als o warne d Gra ha m : Oka y . Agai n, M r. Grah am , y ou ha ve go t g oo d c ou ns el th ere. I do en co ur ag e y ou to m ak e u se of t he res ou rces th atha ve be en pr ov id ed
. AndI cau ti on y ouag ai n abo utwhatev erybod y wou ldcau ti on y ou ab ou t. It’s am is ta ke to try to re pr es en t your se lf, b utI wis h youlu ck
. St an d- by cou ns el Sem

rauwas p res en t atth athe ari ng . On th e su bjec t o f di sc ov ery, Semrauto ldth e m ag is tra te jud ge : W e rec ei ve d v ol um es of i nf orm at io n fr om

th e Gov ern m en t, fo urCDs Semrau is servingas Gra

ham’s appe llate counse l. 3 4orfiv e.

W e h av e co pi edth em , andwe are i n t he pro ces s o f m ai li ng th os e to Mr. Grah am . So I ag reedto be in g t he m id dl em an to th atex te nt . Andth en als o t o acert ai n d eg ree t he re’s jus t t hi ng s t ha t h e can ’t getto . AndI ha ve ag reedto be hi s eyes an d e ars , I supp os e. Fo r in st an ce, I t hi nkm

uc h o f th e d is co ve ry

in th is cas e is co nt ai ne d i n a ro om at t he Fed eral Defen de r’s Offi ce; an d I h av e ag reedto go in an d g etan in de x o f th atm at eri al an d p ro vi de th atto Mr. Grah am . The go ve rn m en t t ol d t he m ag is tra te jud ge th at“ we ha ve m ad e ev erythi ng av ai labl e th atwe ha ve rig htno w.” The ju dg e g av e Grah am anex te ns io n o f 30 da y s t o fi le m ot io ns . Ina Ju ly 25, 2 00 7 s ta tu s co nf eren ce, Grah am

ask edfor a co nt in ua nc e be cau se he was h av in g t ro ub le vi ewin g d is co ve ry on th e CDs th atth e g ov ern m en t ha d p ro vi de d. Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d t he reque st , con ti nu in g t he tri al to th e ne xtav ai labl e cal en da r. The d is tri ctco urt ju dg e h adth is ex ch an ge wit h Gra ha m : THE COURT: W el l, wh atI am tel li ng y ou , Mr. Grah am , is th is is jus t p artof you r pr ob le m whi ch is th aty ou are t ry in g t o re pr es en t y ou rs el f rat he r th an all owi ng th e Co urt t o app oi nta la wy er fo r y ou . If we ap po in t a l awy er fo r y ou , th atlawyer cou ldge t t he di sc ov ery, co ul d lo okat i t an d c ou ldtel l you wh at ’s in th ere. Andy ou co ul d m ak e an in te ll ig en t d eci si on ab ou t wh atto do ab ou t your 5cas e.

THE DE FENDANT: I wan t t o p ro ceedto rep res en t my se lf. THE COURT: W el l, t ha t’s a s tupi d d eci si on . It’s ju streal ly foo li sh , andI am jus t g oi ng to be qu it e b lu ntab ou t i t. The re’s v ery li tt le I can do to ass is t you a s l on g a s you p ers is t i n rep res en ti ng y ou rs el f. The co urt al so ha d t hi s ex ch an ge wit h s ta nd -b y co un se l Se m

rau : THE COURT: Mr. Semrau, is th ere a nyth in g youth in k I c ou lddo th at wou ldpe rs ua de Mr. Grah am to refra infro m

th is fol ly of try in g t o re pr es en t hi m se lf? MR. SEM RAU: No , si r. I th in k youha ve do ne whatI ha ve do ne , si r, whi ch is ex pl ai n t o M r. Grah am th atev en a ve ry

in te ll ig en t p ers on—cl earl y Mr. Grah am

is th at —b en efi ts fro m ha vi ng co un se l b ecau se co un se l ad ds res pe ct ab il it y an d c an advo cat e on so m eo ne ’s beh al f. AndI th in k I h av e ex pl ai ne d t ha t, an d I c an on ly resp ectMr. Grah am ’s de ci si on to do th is
. I th in k h e h as be en in a jury tria l b efo re re pr es en te d b y co un se l, an d ap pa ren tl y

th at ’s no t wh athe want s. So I as su m e h e kno ws ex act ly wha t h e is do in g. Bu t I h av e g iv en hi m th e sa m e ad vi ce t ha t you h av e, Ju dg e. The pro bl em s Graha m

was h av in g v ie win g d is co ve ry were ad dr es se d i n t he
ne xtst atus co nf

eren ce wi th th e d is tri ctco urt o ve r fo urm on th s l at er o n Dec em be r 66, 2 00 7. Co un se l fo r th e g ov ern m en t t ol d t he co urt:

The de ci si on was m ad e th atsi nc e th ere s eem edto be a pr ob le m read in g i t o n t he co m

pu te r we m ad e h ardco pi es of e ve ryth in g. W e se ntth em

th ro ug h M r. Sem

rauto Mr. Grah am , andth atwas d on e se ve ral m on th s ag o. Andso he sh ou ldha ve ev erythi ng an d h as ha d i t fo r a wh il e. The co urt o nc e ag ai n c au ti on edGrah am ab ou t t he da ng ers of r ep res en ti ng hi m se lf, a ndSem

rauco nf irmed th athe ha d re cei ve d t he di sc ov ery fro m th e go ve rn m en t an d h adde li ve reditto Grah am : THE COURT: Mr. Grah am , are y ou st il l i ns is ti ng up on rep res en ti ng y ou rs el f in th is m at te r? THE DE FENDANT: Yes, Yo urHon or . THE COURT: I can ’t say too st ro ng ly how fo ol is h I t hi nkth at de ci si on is in y ou r cas e, bu t we h av e h adth is di sc us si on sev eral ti m es . Andif you a re s im pl y de te rm in edto rep res en t your se lf e ve n th ou gh itwou ldno t b e in y ou r be stin te res t, I ca n’t s to p you . You se em to be a ve ry

in te ll ig en t, arti cu la te pe rs on . You ’ve co m pl ie d wi th al l my di rect io ns . Youha ve no t b een di srup ti ve . Andin th e ab se nc e of th os e k in d o f fac to rs , I can ’t pre ve nty ou fro m rep res en ti ng y ou rs el f. Alt ho ug h, I wi ll tel l you a ga in as I ha ve on nu m ero us ot he r oc cas io ns th at th at ’s no t a g oo d d eci si on . It’s a v ery, ve ry ba d d eci si on . Wha t d o youha ve to say to tha t? THE DE FENDANT: Than k you , You r Hon or .
7THE COURT: Mr. Se m rau , hav e y ou ha d a ny furt he r di sc us si on s wit h M r. Grah am

ab ou t h ow h e in te nd s t o p ro ceedas f ar as rep res en ti ng hi m se lf i n t hi s ca se ? MR. SEM RAU: No , si r, I ha ve n’t, n otsi nc e o ur las t m eet in g. [Go ve rn m en t co un se l] in di cat edI go t d is co ve ry fro m he r. I di d t ha t. I h av en ’t actua ll y he ardfro m

Mr. Grah am

si nc e I d el iv ered di sc ov ery to hi m . ButI un de rs ta ndhe ’s go t s om e que st io ns form e, an d I th in k h e is go in g t o c al l m e. I ha ve a ph on e n um be r atm y off ic e th atpe op le who are i n c us to dy can ca ll co ll ect . So M r. Grah am ha s tha t ab il it y

to cal l m e co ll ect , andI can go vi si t h im
. So I wil l co nt in ue to co un se l wi th hi m . No, I h av en ’t hadan y di sc us si on s wit h h im , Ju dg e. Als o a t t he Decem

be r st atus co nf

eren ce, t he co urt p ro po se d aJan ua ry 20 08 tri al da te , andGrah am

on ce ag ai n s ou gh t t o d el ay th e p ro ceed in gs , ask in g fo r a Feb ru ary da te in st ead . The co urt o nc e ag ai n a cco m m od at edGrah am

an d s etth e tri al forFeb ru ary 4, 2 00 8. Grah am ass ur edth e co urt, “ I wil l b e rea dy anyti m e in Feb ru ary. ” Andon ce ag ai n, t he co urt warne d h im : THE COURT: Now, d o youun de rs ta ndy ou ha ve go t the rig htto rep res en t y ou rs el f ory ou ha ve go t t he rig htto ha ve a la wy er ap po in te d fo r y ou ; you do n'tha ve th e ri gh t t o b ot h? So if you s ti ll in te ndto rep res en t your se lf, wh en we st artth e tr ia l M r. Semrauis go in g t o b e g on e. He is no t g oi ng to be he re. THE DE FENDANT: I un de rs ta ndth at .
8THE COURT: Andy ou m ay well en co un te r si tu at io ns wher e y ou m ay th in k y ou ne edth e b en efi t o f tr ai ne d l eg al co un se l. Th ere’s n otgo in g t o b e an y bo dy here fory ou . THE DE FENDANT: I un de rs ta ndth at , You r Hon or . THE COURT: He is go in g t o b e g on e. He is go in g t o s ta y in th e cas e as st an db y co un se l i n t he ho pe th aty ou wil l ch an ge y ou r m in d andall ow h im to rep res en t you. Bu t o nc e we s ta rt t he tri al , y ouare g oi ng to be ony ou r own an d i t’ll be to o l at e to ch an ge y ou r m in d the n. You un de rs ta ndth at ? THE DE FENDANT: Yes, s ir. Andy etag ai n: THE COURT: Mr. Grah am , m ortg ag e fraudcas es are v ery co m pl ic at ed
. The y are v ery do cu m en t i nt en si ve . [Gov ern m en t co un se l] has ha d alo t o f pr act ic e try in g t he m , so sh e is ve ry go odat i t. Sh e kno ws wh atto do , kn ows ho w to pre se nton e o f th es e cas es ve ry well
. The re wi ll be a lo t o f do cu m en ts . Andth e way we ha nd le on e o f th es e cas es , I do n’t s to p t he tri al on ce a ju ry is im pa ne le d t o g iv e th e Defen da ntor t he de fen se att orne y

th e ti m e to ex am in e th e d oc um en ts th atare b ei ng in tro du cedan d d is cu ss edwit h t he wit ne ss es . So y ou are g oi ng to ha ve to be ful ly famil iar with a ll th e Gov ern m en t’s do cu m en ts be fo re the tri al of t he cas e. Are y ou pre pa redto do th at ? THE DE FENDANT: Yes, s ir. The co urt em

ph as iz edth at“ th e cas e wil l d efi ni te ly, ab se ntso m e ex tra or di na ry

9ci rcu m st an ces , go forwardonFeb ru ary th e 4 th .”

At t he Jan ua ry

11 , 20 08 st atus co nf

eren ce, Grah am

so ug hta th ird
co nt in ua nc e, an d u ns ur

pr is in gl y th e co urt was no t re cep ti ve to th atreque st : THE COURT: Mr. Grah am , I warn edy ou when we fir sttal ke d abo utth e di ffi cu lt y y ou were g oi ng to ha ve pre pa rin g a t t he jail th atitwas g oi ng to crea te pro bl em s fo r y ou an d d iff ic ul ti es an d t ha t t ha t’s o ne of t he di sa dv an ta ge s o f try in g t o re pr es en t your se lf r at he r th an ha vi ng Mr. Semrau rep res en t you a t t he tri al of t he cas e. At t he las t p ret ria l co nf

eren ce, I was read y

to pu t t hi s ca se do wn fo r tr ia l i n Ja nu ary. The Gov ern m en t i nd ic at edth ey were re ady

to try the cas e in Jan ua ry . You as ke d fo r a Feb ru ary tri al da te . I ga ve itto y ou . AndI am go in g t o d en y

y ou r reque stfor

an y fur th er p os tp on em en t o f it be cau se I th in k youha ve be en gi ve n areas on ab le am ou ntof t im e to pre pa re, an d we n eedto ge t t hi s ca se res ol ve d. THE DE FENDANT: Okay. Als o a t t ha t co nf

eren ce, Grah am

ass ur edth e co urt t ha t h e wou ldha ve so m eo ne br in g h im st reetclo th es forth e tr ia l: THE COURT: I al so sai d t ha t you a re g oi ng to be dre ss edin st reetclo th es . Hav e y ou go t s om eb od y

bri ng in g you r cl ot he s? THE DE FENDANT: Yes, Yo urHon or .
10Andon e la stti m e, th e co urt m ad e su re tha t Gra ha m in te nd edto rep res en t h im se lf: THE COURT: All rig ht . Agai n, M r. Sem rau , th an k youfortrying to ass is t th e Co urt o n t hi s. An d, M r. Grah am , y ou st il l i ns is t o n g oi ng forward rep res en ti ng y ou rs el f attri al ? THE DE FENDANT: Yes, s ir, Yo urHon or . THE COURT: It’s n ota go odid ea fo r th e rea so ns I ha ve di sc us se d wi th y ou be fo re. Bu t i f y ou are d et erm in edto do it , I am go in g t o l ety ou do it
. THE DE FENDANT: Than k you
. THE COURT: It ’s no t tha t I a m go in g t o l ety ou , it ’s th atI ha ve no ch oi ce i n th e m at te r. All rig ht . If th ere’s n ot hi ng furth er, the n we wi ll be ad jou rn ed
.
Grah am was b ro ug htto co urt fo r tr ia l o n F eb ru ary 4, 2 00 8, an d o n t he ve ry da y th atth e tr ia l was sch edul edto be gi n h e to ldth e co urt h e was no t re ady to pr oc eed . He refu se d t o p art ic ip at e if th e tr ia l wen t fo rward . Stan d- by cou ns el Semrauwas c on ta ct eddu rin g arece ss , andhe cam e to co urt atno on . On t ha t s am e d ay

—af te r Grah am

ha d b een pro ceed in g p ro se f orab ou t a y ear- an d- a-h al f—h e to ldth e co urt t ha t h e wan te d t o “ [w]ith dr aw [fro m ] pr oc eed in g p ro se” an d t ha t h e was “ hi rin g c ou ns el rig htno w.” He id en ti fie d Mar ci a Sh ei n a ndDani el Kane as l awy ers he was c on si de rin g h iri ng , andhe st at ed th atbo th of t ho se lawyers h adsp ok en wit h c ou ns el for th e g ov ern m en t b utha d n ot

11y etgi ve n h im a pr ic e fo r th ei r se rv ic es . He ask edfor a te n- da y co nt in ua nc e so th at
on e o f th os e la wy ers co ul d b eg in rep res en ti ng hi m . The co urt re sp on de d: Mr. Grah am , th is is to o l at e fo r y ou to try to as k t o d el ay th e tr ia l o f th is cas e th e m orni ng it ’s sch edul edfortri al when I ha ve warn edy ouall alo ng th atth is cas e was go in g t o g o fo rwardan d t ha t i f y ou co nt in ue d t o i ns is t o n rep res en ti ng y ou rs el f th atitwas g oi ng to crea te pro bl em s fo r y ou an d you were n otgo in g t o b e h ap py with th e res ul t. Grah am st at edag ai n t ha t h e ref

us edto parti ci pa te inth e tr ia l. When st an d- by
co un se l Se m

rauarri ve d, h e to ldth e co urt t ha t h e “ wou ldli ke anop po rtu ni ty to pr ep are f or th e tr ia l p ro pe rly, and[he ] wou ldne edso m e ti m e to do th at .” The
co urt re sp on de d:
W el l, I u nd ers ta ndth e d iff ic ul t p os it io n t hi s p ut s you i n, M r. Sem rau . AndI am en ti rel y sym pa th et ic wit h t he po in t o f vi ew th aty ouha ve jus t ex pr es se d. Bu t I fi ndth atby tell in g m e fo r m on th s t ha t h e was go in g t o re pr es en t hi m se lf, re fu si ng all m

y pl eas th athe reco ns id er t ha t d eci si on an d a ll ow you orso m e o th er at to rn ey

to rep res en t h im

th atMr. Grah am

ha s wai ve d h is rig htto effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l; an d I a m go in g fo rwardonth at ba si s. The di stric t co urt t hu s ap po in te d S em rauto serve as Gra ha m ’s tri al co un se l bu t d ecl in edto gra ntanad di ti on al co nt in ua nc e. Sem rauackno wled ge d tha t h e d id
no t “ ta ke arg um en t wi th [th e co urt’s] po in t tha t M r. Grah am ha s ce rta in ly had
ev ery op po rtu ni ty to ei th er re ta in co un se l o r in di cat e th athe want edth e as si st an ce of co un se l.” Se m

rauco nt en de d, h owe ve r, th atth e co urt was m ak in g am is ta ke by
12ha vi ng hi m

actas c ou ns el at t ha t p oi ntinth e p ro ceed in gs . The co urt d eci de d t o g o fo rwardwit h t he tri al an d re m in de d t he pa rti es th atitha d a lre ady in fo rm edth em th atth e co urt wo ul d c on du ctvo ir d ire . The co urt i ns tru ct edGrah am th athe co ul d pr op os e fo ll ow- up qu es ti on s i f he ch os e to do so , andth e co urt wo ul d c on si de r th em . As fo r Grah am ’s att ire , he a rri ve d i n c ou rt d res se d i n a n o ran ge jail su it
. Semraust at edth atif Gra ha m in te nd edto be in th e co urtro om in th e p res en ce o f th e jury: “ I wou ldaskth athe be tak en ou t o f hi s jai l s ui t s o t ha t h e can ap pe ar be fo re t he jury in st reetclo th es . I hav e n on e fo r hi m , of c ou rs e; bu t t ha t’s m y reque st .” The c ou rt r es po nd edth atitha d “ as ke d abo utth atat t he las t p ret ria l
co nf eren ce. AndMr. Grah am to ld[th e co urt] hi s fa m il y was g oi ng to be pro vi di ng hi m wit h c ou rt c lo th es whi ch ag ai n a s i n s o m an y th in gs di dn ’t hap pe n, an d t ha t’s why he is in th e jum

ps ui t.” Se m

rausai d: “ Yes , si r. I do reca ll th at . And , ne ve rth el es s, t ha t’s m

y reque st .” The c ou rt d en ie d t he reque st . Neit he r Semrau no r Grah am

pro po se d a ny alt ern at iv e way to ge t s tre etclo th es forGrah am wit ho ut de la y in g the st artof the tri al . Duri ng th e tr ia l Gra ha m was n otin leg iro ns . Afte r a fo ur -d ay

tri al , th e jury retu rn eda gu il ty verd ic t o n a ll co un ts , andGrah am was co nv ic te d.

13III.

Grah am co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y de nyin g h is reque stfora co nt inua nc e o f th e tr ia l i n o rd er t o o bt ai n c ou ns el of h is ch oi ce. He arg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt erredby find in g t ha t h e h adwaiv edhi s ri gh t t o effe ct iv e co un se l. Acco rd in g t o Gra ha m , he was no t o bs tru ct iv e an d h e d idno t de li be rat el y

m an ip ul at e th e p ro ceed in gs . He arg ue s tha t ev enth ou gh itm ig ht ap pe ar as if, i n o rd er t o d el ay th e tr ia l, h e wai te d u nt il th e la stm in ut e to reque st
co un se l, h e actua ll y

ask edfora co nt in ua nc e a m on th be fo re t ria l. Grah am fai ls to po in t o ut , ho wev er, tha t al th ou gh he di d a skth e d is tri ct
co urt fo r y etan ot he r co nt in ua nc e a m on th be fo re t ria l, h e d idno t re qu es t co un se l atth atti m e. If h e h ad , st an d- by cou ns el wou ldha ve be en ap po in te d t o re pr es en t hi m , andhe wou ldno t h av e fac edth e al le ge d p ro bl em s h e n ow ar gu es oc cu rredas a res ul t o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o g ran t h is las t-minu te reque st . Graha m ad m it s t ha t h e “ cert ai nl y

co nt rib ut edto hi s d il emm a b y reque st in g c ou ns el at t he 11 ho uran d h e certa in ly hadti m e to pre pa re h is own de fen se ,” bu t h e as se rts th at th

“ hi s co nt inue d re qu es ts forfur th er i nf orm at io n, m or e ti m e, an d u lt im at el y co un se l in di cat e th athe real iz edhi s fa il ur e atsel f rep res en ta ti on .” A.

“ W e rev ie w th e d is po si ti on of r eque st s fo r tr ia l co nt inua nc es forab us e o f
14di sc ret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bowe , 22 1 F .3d11 83 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). “ The

pa rty den ie d t he co nt in ua nc e m us t al so sh ow s pe ci fic , subs ta nt ia l p reju di ce i n so m e ci rcu m st an ces , su chas wh en th e cl ai m is ba se d o n a n a ll eg edin ad equa te op po rtu ni ty to p rep are f

or tri al .” Id . at 1 18 9 n .5; see als o Un it edSta te s v . Verd eram e, 51 F.3d24 9, 2 51 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (s ta ti ng th atto est ab li sh a du e pr oc es s v io la ti on , a de fen da nt“ m us t s ho w th atth e d en ia l o f th e m ot io n fo r co nt in ua nc e was anab us e o f di sc ret io n wh ic h re su lt edinsp eci fic subs ta nt ia l pr ejud ic e”). “ Whe th er a d en ia l o f a req ue stforco nt in ua nc e to ob ta in co un se l i s vi ol at iv e o f th e Si xth Am en dm en t g ua ran te e o f th e ri gh t t o c ou ns el m us t b e res ol ve d o n acas e b y

cas e b as is , dep en di ng up on th e p art ic ul ar ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g t he reas on s fo r th e req ue stpre se nt edto th e tr ia l ju dg e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Terry, 44 9 F .2d72 7, 7 28 (5t h C ir. 1 97 1)
. 4

“ [T]he Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e itcle ar tha t n otev ery de ni al of areque st fo r a co nt in ua nc e is a de ni al of due pro ces s.” Un it edSta te s v . Bak er, 4 32 F.3d 11 89 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ The pro pe r ex erci se of t he tri al co urt’s d is cret io n th us requi res a de li cat e b al an ce b et ween th e d efen da nt ’s rig htto ad equa te rep res en ta ti on by cou ns el of h is ch oi ce an d t he ge ne ral in te res t i n the pro m ptan d

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 4 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down be fore October 1, 1981. 15effi ci en t ad m in is tra ti on of ju st ic e.” Id
. B.

Inth e p res en t ca se th e d is tri ctco urt re pe at ed ly w arn edGrah am of t he ris ks he was t ak in g b y

ch oo si ng to pro ceedpro se. On m or e th an on e o ccas io n t he co urt sp eci fic al ly ins tru ct edhi m th atdi sc ov ery wou ldbe pa rti cu la rly dif fic ul t b ecau se he was i nc arce rat ed . Graha m ha d abo ut18 m on th s b et ween hi s arrai gn m en t an d th e fi rs t d ay

of t he sp eci al ly set t ria l. Hardco pi es of t he di sc ov ery m at eri al s wer e pr ov id edto hi m

be cau se at t he jail he ha d t ech ni cal pro bl em s wi th vi ewin g t he CD pr ov id edby the go ve rn m en t. He was acco m m od at edin ev ery way

po ss ib le . He ha d alo t o f ti m e an d alo t o f en co ur ag em en t t o c on si de r an d re co ns id er h is de ci si on to pro ceedpro se, b uthe di d n otan no un ce a d es ire forco un se l u nt il th e da y setfortri al , aft er t he di st ric t co urt h adalr eady gra nt edhi m

two co nt in ua nc es . Arg ui ng th atGrah am

ha d p le nt y

of t im e to pre pa re fo r tr ia l, t he go ve rn m en t rel ie s o n t he reas on in g i n Un it edSta te s v . Terry , 44 9 F .2d72 7 (5 th Cir . 19 71 ). In 5 Terry th e d efen da ntwas a rrai gn edan d t ria l was setforsi x wee ks lat er. Id . at 7 27
. Co un se l fo r th e d efen se m ov edfora co nt in ua nc e ab ou t t wo wee ks be fo re t ria l, an d th atm ot io n was de ni ed . Id. at72 7– 28 . On th e d ay setforth e tr ia l t o b eg in , th e de fen da ntsh owe d up wi th ou t co un se l an d a sk edfora co nt in ua nc e so th athe co ul d See note 4, supra
. 5 16ret ai n n ew co un se l b ecau se he ha d fi redhi s l awy er. Id . at 7 28
.

The go ve rn m en t was pre pa redfortri al an d i ts wit ne ss es were re ady , bu t t he
co urt g av e Terry 48 h ou rs to ret ai n n ew co un se l. Id . Whe n t he cas e was cal le d ag ai n t wo d ay s l at er, Terry on ce ag ai n app eare d wi th ou t co un se l an d s ai d t ha t
co un se l d idno t h av e en ou gh ti m e to pre pa re. Id . He fin al ly ask edth e co urt t o ap po in t co un se l fo r hi m , bu t t he re was no su gg es ti on th athe was i nd ig en t o r la ck edfun ds , andth e co urt re fu se d t o app oi ntco un se l. Id . Trial wentforward , an d Terry was u nr ep res en te d. Id . Our p red eces so r co urt h el d t ha t Terry ha d b een gi ve n areas on ab le ti m e to sec ur e co un se l o f hi s ch oi ce an d h e was fin an ci al ly abl e to do so ; as a res ul t “ hi s fa il ur e to ret ai n c ou ns el was p ro pe rly treat edby the co urt
as a waiv er o f hi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el .” Id . There was n o abu se of d is cret io n i n t he di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o g ran t a t hi rdco nt inua nc e. Id . at 7 29
. Terry supp orts th e co nc lu si on th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err whe n i t refu se d t o g ran t Gra ha m

a th irdco nt in ua nc e. Alm os t a year-an d- a-h al f be fo re t he tri al be ga n S em

rauwas app oi nt edas Gra ha m ’s st an d- by cou ns el . Sem rauatt en de d al l o f th e p re-t ria l h eari ng s an d c on fere nc es an d e ve n h el pe d Graha m ob ta in di sc ov ery do cu m en ts . Duri ng all of t ha t t im e an d i n t he face of r ep eat ed
cau ti on ary st at em en ts fro m th e co urt, Grah am

in si st edon pro ceed in g p ro se. Fi na ll y , on th e fi rs t d ay

of t ria l, Grah am

refu se d t o g o fo rwardwit h t he tri al 17an d s ai d h e wan te d t o b e rep res en te d b y co un se l b uthe want edso m e o th er l awy er an d n othi s s ta nd -b y

co un se l. The ot he r la wy ers Grah am ha d c on ta ct edin di cat ed th athe ha d n otret ai ne d t he m . It i s u nl ik el y th at , st art in g fr om

scr at ch , th ey

co ul d ha ve pre pa redfortri al du rin g t he 10 -d ay co nt inua nc e th atGrah am reque st ed
an yway . A def en da ntcan no t u se th e ri gh t t o c ou ns el as am ean s t o m an ip ul at e th e co urt an d c au se de la y : “ The rig htto ass is ta nc e o f co un se l, ch eri sh edan d fu nd am en ta l t ho ug h i t b e, m ay no t b e p utto servi ce as a m ean s o f de la y in g o r tri fli ng wit h t he co urt.” Un it edSta te s v . Fowl er, 6 05 F.2d18 1, 1 83 (5t h C ir. 19 79 ). The seq ue nc e o f ev en ts in th is cas e st ro ng ly sug ge st s t ha t Gra ha m was 6
en ga gi ng in cal cu la te d m an eu ve rs de si gn edto for ce the co urt t o d el ay hi s t ria l. The de ni al of Gra ha m ’s reque stfora co nt in ua nc e d idno t re su ltin th e lo ss of Grah am ’s rig htto co un se l. Cf. Terry , 44 9 F .2dat 7 28 . Alth ou gh Sem rauwas no t as pre pa redfortri al as h e co ul d h av e b een ha d h e b een rep res en ti ng Grah am fro m th e b eg in ni ng , any erro r inth atreg ardwas i nv it edby G rah am ’s m an ip ul at iv e co nduc t an d h is rep eat edin si st en ce o n re pr es en ti ng hi m se lf i n s pi te of t he di st ric t
co urt’s ad m on it io ns ag ai ns t i t. Cf. Un it edSta te s v . Ros s, 1 31 F.3d97 0, 9 88 (11 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (“ It i s a c ard in al rul e o f ap pe ll at e rev ie w th ata pa rty m ay no t ch al le ng e See note 4, supra
. 6 18as erro r a ru li ng or o th er t ria l p ro ceed in g i nv it edby tha t p art y .” (quo ta ti on m ark s

om it te d) ). Fur th erm or e, Grah am do es no t m en ti on an yth in g s pe ci fic th athi s co un se l wo ul d h av e d on e d iff eren tl y if aco nt inua nc e h adbe en gra nt ed . The
reco rdin di cat es th at , far fro m be in g i ne ffec ti ve , st an d- by cou ns el Sem raucap ab ly
an d z eal ou sl y

rep res en te d Gra ha m , parti cu la rly giv en th atGrah am ’s att em pt s t o

“ de la y [ ] ortri fl[ e] with th e co urt,” F owl er, 6 05 F.2dat 1 83 , lef t Se m rauwith v ery li tt le ti m e to pre pa re fo r tr ia l. Eve n s o, Gra ha m

arg ue s t ha t h is reque stwas n otto ob ta inco un se l o f hi s ch oi ce o r to ge t ad di ti on al ti m e to pre pa re h is de fen se ; i ns te ad , he a sk edforti m e to hi re co m

pe te ntco un se l wh o was pre pa redfor tri al . Befo re t he tri al be ga n Grah am ha d ay ear- an d- a-h al f to de ci de to hi re an y lawyer he c ho se or t o a ccep t th e se rv ic es of h is st an d- by app oi nt edco un se l. If Graha m fai le d t o o bt ai n wh athe
co ns id eredto be id eal co un se l, i t i s n ob od y ’s fau ltbu t h is own . In Gan dy v. Alab am a, 56 9 F .2d13 18 , 13 23 (5t h C ir. 1 97 8) , ou r pr ed eces so r co urt h el d: “ Due pr oc es s d em an ds th atth e d efen da ntbe affo rd eda fai r op po rtu ni ty to o bt ai n t he
as si st an ce o f co un se l o f hi s ch oi ce t o p rep are a ndco nduc t h is de fen se . The
co ns ti tu ti on al m an da te is sat is fie d s o l on g a s t he accu se d i s af fo rd eda fai r or reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty to o bt ai n p art ic ul ar co un se l, an d s o l on g a s the re i s n o arb it rary acti on pro hi bi ti ng th e eff ect iv e u se of s uc h c ou ns el .” Id . at 1 32 3. 19Eig ht een m on th s fu rn is he d m or e th ana fai r op po rtu ni ty for Grah am to ob ta in
co un se l an d t o p rep are f

ortri al . Ins te ad , Grah am in si st edon pro ceed in g pr o s e d es pi te th e d is tri ctco urt’s re pe at edwarn in gs ab ou t t he ha zard s o f do in g s o. Grah am di d m or e th an co nt rib ut e to hi s o wn s itua ti on ; h e cre at edit . And th e rec or d s ho ws t ha t h e in te nt io na ll y crea te d i t. We will no t p erm itGrah am to ga m e th e syst em

by ass ert in g a t t hi s p oi ntinth e p ro ceed in gs th athe was d en ie d hi s ri gh t t o c om

pe te ntco un se l o f hi s ch oi ce. The di st ric t co urt ac te d wel l wi th in it s d is cret io n wh en itrefu se d t o g ran t Graha m y etan ot he r co nt in ua nc e o n t he da y se t fo r th e tr ia l t o b eg in
. IV. Grah am co nt en ds th athi s ri gh ts to du e p ro ces s wer e v io la te d b ecau se he ap pe aredat t ria l i n an o ran ge jail su it . It i s a F ou rte en th Am en dm en t v io la ti on to

“ co m pe l an accu se d t o s ta ndtri al be fo re a ju ry whi le dre ss edin id en ti fiabl e p ris on cl ot he s,” b ut“ th e fai lu re t o m ak e an ob jecti on to th e co urt as to be in g t rie d i n s uc h cl ot he s, fo r wha te ve r rea so n, i s s uf fic ie ntto ne ga te th e p res en ce o f co m pu ls io n ne ces sa ry to est ab li sh a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Est el le v. Will ia m s, 4 25 U.S. 50 1, 5 12 –1 3, 9 6 S .Ct. 1 69 1, 1 69 7 (1 97 6) . If a co ns ti tu ti on al erro r ha s o ccu rred , we rev ie w to de te rm in e whe th er i t i s “ ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Harri s, 7 03 F.2d50 8, 5 12 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). 20Eve n t ho ug h ade fen da ntcan no t b e co m pe ll edto wear i de nt ifi ab le pri so n cl ot he s b efo re a ju ry

at t ria l, s ee Es te ll e, 42 5 U.S. at51 2– 13 , 96 S.Ct . at 1 69 7, t he Supr em e Co urt h as reco gn iz edth at“ itis no t an un co m m on de fen se tac ti c to pr oduc e th e d efen da ntin jail clo th es in th e h op e o f el ic it in g s ym pa th y fro m th e jury.” Id. at 6 08 , 96 S. Ct. at16 95 . Alo ng th os e li ne s, t he Sev en th Cir cu itha s ob se rv ed : “ [S]om e d efen da nt s m ay no t ca re, o r m ay

be li ev e th atitco nf

ers a st rat eg ic ad va nt ag e to ap pe ar as a cap ti ve . A lit ig an t s ho ul d n otbe pe rm it te d t o se ekth is ad va nt ag e (i f ad va nt ag e itis ), an d t he n s etup th e sa m e p oi ntas areas on fo r rev ers al .” Duar te v. Un it edSta te s, 8 1 F .3d75 , 77 (7t h C ir. 1 99 6)
. Grah am co nt en ds th athi s fa il ur e to bri ng hi s o wn cl ot he s t o t ria l i s an in su ffi ci en t b as is for

ho ld in g t ha t h e wai ve d h is co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. He as se rts th atth e d is tri ctco urt “ ru le d tha t Gra ha m ha d e ss en ti al [ly] ass um edth e o nu s o f pr ov id in g h is own clo th in g wh en he ass um edhi s o wn d efen se .” Actu al ly, Grah am un equi vo cal ly tol d t he co urt tha t h e was ob ta in in g s tre etclo th in g a ndth en off ered
no ex pl an at io n wh at so ev er fo r ap pe ari ng on th e fi rs t d ay of t ria l i n p ris on att ire
. Grah am pu t o n t he bu rd en of p ro vi di ng hi s o wn cl ot he s b y tel li ng th e co urt h e wou lddo it . Graha m

ap pe aredin jail clo th es be fo re t he jury as a res ul t o f hi s o wn co nduc t. He as su redth e co urt t ha t s om eo ne wou ldpro vi de hi m wit h s tre etclo th es on th e d ay

of t ria l. When th atda y

cam e h e h adno st reetclo th es , no ex pl an at io n 21fo r why he l ack edth em , andno pro po sa l fo r a way to ge t an y

wit ho utde la y in g t he tri al . Und er t he cir cu m st an ces th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly refu se d t o d el ay th e tr ia l. Grah am crea te d h is own pro bl em . Cf. Su nAm eri ca Co rp . v. Su n Li fe As su r. Co
. of Can ad a, 77 F.3d13 25 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (h ol di ng th atwhen pa rti es “ m ak e factua l re pr es en ta ti on s i n t he di st ric t co urt o r in th is Co urt t ha t d en ia l o f a s ta y wil l
m oo t t he ap pe al , th ey

m ay be est op pe d fr om

arg ui ng aft er t he st ay

is de ni edth at th e ap pe al is no t m oo t” ). Noton ly tha t, b utGrah am ’s cou ns el als o a de pt ly m an ag edto us e th e o ran ge jail su itforst rat eg ic ad va nt ag e, in co rp or at in g arefe ren ce t o i t i n h is op en in g st at em en t: Mr. Grah am

is weari ng anora ng e su it . I hav e m en ti on edit , anditis un us ua l. Bu t h e is do in g i t v ery de li be rat el y . He will ex pl ai n t o youwhy he is weari ng anora ng e su it . It’s b ecau se he is in jail , andhe want s ev erybod y to kn ow ab ou t i t. He i s n othapp y ab ou t i t. An d h e is go in g t o t es ti fy , and he is go in g t o b e p as si on at e. He is go in g t o b e th or ou gh ; an d h e is go in g t o ex pl ai n t o youwhy it ’s un jus t, wh y it ’s wron g a ndwhy he sh ou ldno t b e in jail on e d ay

lo ng er. Grah am ch os e to tak e th e st an d, an d dur in g h is di rectex am in at io n Gra ha m ’s
co un se l as ke d h im

why he was wea rin g “ an un us ua l s ui t fo r a tria l.” Gra ha m te st ifi ed : I am weari ng itbe cau se of t he th in gs th atth e Gov ern m en t h as do ne to m e. Andpu tt in g m e in pri so n n oton ly w as il le ga l b utitwas— itjus t was rid ic ul ou s. An d I a m weari ng itto letth em

kn ow n o m at te r wha t 22su itI wear o r ho wev er l on g I a m go in g t o b e in carc erat edI am go in g to ne ve r fo rg etth is forth e res t o f m y li fe. The jury di d n otlea rnth atGrah am was i nc arce rat edsi m

pl y by seei ng hi m

in a p ris on su it ; Gra ha m

to ldth e jury tha t h e h adbe en in carc erat edsi nc e 2 00 3 a fte r pl ead in g g ui lt y

to a drug off

en se in a se pa rat e cas e an d tha t h e was weari ng th e pr is on su it“be cau se of t he th in gs th atth e Gov ern m en t h a[d ] do ne to [hi m ]. ” Grah am ’s Fou rte en th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o afai r tr ia l was no t v io la te d b y th e fac t th athe wore pri so n a tt ire in st eadof f urni sh in g h is own st reetclo th es as h e h ad pr om is edth e co urt h e wou lddo
. V. Fi na ll y , Grah am

co nt en ds th atth e ad m is si on of “ ex pe rt” tes ti m on y by lay wit ne ss an d fo rm er at to rn ey W il li am Key vi ol at edhi s ri gh t t o afai r tr ia l. We ge ne ral ly revi ew ev id en ti ary de ci si on s o nl y forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v. Br own , 41 5 F .3d12 57 , 12 64 –6 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . “ As a p ract ic al m at te r, th e ab us e o f di sc ret io n s tand ardm ean s t ha t a d is tri ctco urt h as a ran ge of c ho ic e.” Id
. at12 65 . The g ov ern m en t co nt en ds , ho wev er, tha t we s ho ul d re vi ew on ly for p la in
erro r be cau se Grah am

di d n otob

ject o n t he gro un ds th atKey was p ro vi di ng ex pe rt te st im on y ev enth ou gh he was alay witn es s. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Hans en , 26 2 F.3 d 1 21 7, 1 23 3– 34 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Reg ard le ss of the ap pl ic ab le st an da rdof

23rev ie w, th e rec or d c le arl y sh ows th atKey

was t es ti fy in g b as edon hi s o wn pe rs on al kn owl ed ge as aform er at to rn ey who ha d e ng ag edin frau du le ntreal est at e cl os in gs , andth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err by adm it ti ng hi s t es ti m on y . Key , a fo rm er re al est at e at to rn ey who was s erv in g t im e in pri so n, was cal le d a s a wi tn es s fo r th e g ov ern m en t, an d h e te st ifi edab ou t m ortg ag e fraud
. Afte r Grah am

ob jecte d t o Key’ s t es ti m on y on lac k o f fo un da ti on gro un ds , th e go ve rn m en t es tabl is he d t ha t Key hadpe rs on al kn owl ed ge ba se d o n h is pa rti ci pa ti on in frau du le ntreal est at e cl os in gs . Key tes ti fie d t ha t h e h adalr ead y 7 pl ead edgu il ty to m ortg ag e fraudin a cas e in Sav an na h a ndwas s erv in g t im e in pr is on . He tes ti fie d t ha t h e al so “ di d” frau du le ntlo an s fo r on e o f Grah am ’s coGra ham’s thre e objec tions to Key ’s testimony wer e: (1) “ He ha s no basis of knowledg e 7 for that testimony”; (2) “ I object. Can we be more — to releva nce. I don’t know what we ar e talking a bout, what transa ction specific ally .”; and (3) “ He is not testifying f rom persona l knowledg e. He is speculatingat this point.” The fir st objection based on lac k of foundation was overr uled and wa s followed by Key ’s testimony that he wa s descr ibing what he per sonally knew a bout based on his own involvement in fraudule nt rea l estate c losings. Gr aham’ s second objec tion on releva nce grounds was overr uled and wa s followed by more of K ey ’s testimony about his persona l experience conductingfra

udulent rea l estate c losings. He testified that one wa y to defra ud the lender

was for the buyer a

nd seller to “a g reeon paper that the buyer put 10 pe rce nt ear nest money

down at the time of signingthe sales c ontrac t when, in fa ct, the buyer ne ver did re ally put down any

money whatsoeve r.” A ccor ding to Ke y , a copy of the c heck w ould be made a nd sent to the lender

as proof, but the c heck w as neve r ca shed. Ke y testified that he pe rsonally included that ty

pe of verific ation in loan files— knowingit was nothing more than a pictur e of a chec k—and that he did so on behalf of

Phill ip Hill and others in fra udulent rea l estate c losings. Gr aham’ s third objection was that Key

was spec ulating instea d of testifying ba sed on his own per sonal knowledg e. The court instructe d Key not to speculate, a

nd the g overnme nt asked him to rec all specific ally

what had ha

ppened during tr ansac tions in which he was involved.

24co ns pi rat or s, Ph il li p Hi ll , in Atl an ta . Whe n a sk edab ou t t he sco pe of h is il le ga l

act iv ity , he t es ti fie d a s fo ll ows : W el l, I am

anatt orne y

an d I d o re al est at e tr an sa ct io ns . AndI pl ed gu il ty to o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to c omm itwire frau d c on cern in g a real est at e tr an sa ct io n i n Au gu st a, Geo rg ia . The s co pe of t ho se tra ns act io ns in vo lv edtwo m ortg ag e b ro ke rs pl us anin de pe nd en t re al es ta te in ve st or . Andth ey wou ldbu y

ho us es , andth ey

wou ldfix up ho us es . Butth ey

wou ldov ers ta te th ei r rep ai rs , andso th ey wou ldpu t rep ai r m on ey

in to th ei r po ck et s, an d t he y wou ldno t ac tu al ly use th e rep ai r m on ey

to rep ai r th e h ou se . So when th e d ev el op er wen t i nt o b an krup tc y , he d efau lt edon pr ob ab ly 20 m ortg ag e lo an s t ha t t he m ortg ag e b ro ke rs he lp edhi m ge t. Key tes ti fie d t ha t h e kne w th os e lo an s wer e fraudul en t atth e ti m e h e was he lp in g ot he rs ob ta in th em . Then Key tes ti fie d abo utsp eci fic tra ns act io ns he di d fo r Ph il li p Hi ll wit h t he kn owl ed ge th atth os e d eal s wer e al so frau du le nt . Key als o t es ti fie d abo utot he r sp eci fic frau du le ntlo an tra ns act io ns , su ch as on e fo r Ch eryl Denn y . Key st at edth atGrah am

was i nv ol ve d i n t he Denn y de al
an d h adbro ug hthe r to th e cl os in g. He s ai d t ha t h e h aden ga ge d i n d is cu ss io ns wit h Gra ha m

ab ou t t he pa ym en ts Denn y was s up po se d t o m ak e. Key als o t es ti fie d abo uta cl os in g wi th Co rtn ey Jac ks on . Graha m

att en de d th atclo si ng on be ha lf o f th e Alc in do r-Will ia m s Gro up . At on e p oi ntin hi s te st im on y , Key

sp ok e in m or e g en eral term s ab ou t wh atwas i nv ol ve d i n pr oc es si ng lo an s, b uthe di d tha t i n o rd er t o e xp la in hi s ac tu al co nduc t i n the se 25tra ns act io ns , andth ere was no ob jecti on fro m

Grah am . In fa ct , on cro ss ex am in at io n Gra ha m ’s cou ns el ask edKey so m e g en eral qu es ti on s ab ou t h ow the lo an tra ns act io ns work ed . Cou ns el forth e g ov ern m en t o bjec te d b as edon lac k o f fo un da ti on , bu t h er o bjec ti on was o ve rru le d. Co un se l fo r Grah am als o a sk edKey a “ [t]ech ni cal qu es ti on : Whatis anop ti on to pu rch as e rea l es ta te ? ” Key pro vi de d
an an swe r. Grah am

hi m se lf t es ti fie d abo utreal est at e o pt io ns when he to okth e st an d i n h is own de fen se . 8
Gra ham had this to say

about options: 8 Icould take a

n option and Icould g et a juror or anyone to agree to a price and I could have a buyer to wa

nt to buy and I never have to take title to the property . I could flip the prope rty

with an option. I t’s done thousands of times a da y on the stock marke t. Icould have a ca ll and a buyer. Gra ham furthe r explained options to the jury in this ex chang e with counse l on direct examination: [Graham:] All right. L et’s assume that somebody lived on Peachtr ee a

nd was poor. The guy

couldn’t buy

a mea l. He could dr aw up a n option on a piece of paper and g o find a prope rty

that someone is losing that wants to prese rve the ir cre dit. The proper

ty – [Defense Counsel] Okay . L et’s say that’s me. L et’s say

that Ihave g ood cre dit but Ilost my

job and I own a house . I s that what you are talking a bout? [Graham:] Yes. [Defense Counsel:] Okay
. [Graham:] Iwould come to you and I ’d say , Scott, how long ha ve you had the house? He would sa

y , well, you know, we ha

ve bee n in it for ten year s or whateve r. So what would happe n is y ou built up som ethingcalled e quity . Isay , Scott, y ou owe the mor

tga g e compa

ny $300,000. I

will give you $340,000. Would you take it? You say

y eah. I say , Scott, because Ilive on the stree t Idon’t have

26W e h av e h el d t ha t a wi tn es s wh o h as parti cu la riz edkn owl ed ge by virtue of

hi s p os it io n i n acert ai n c om pa ny can g iv e an op in io n abo utth e m an ne r in whi ch th atco m pa ny con du ct s i ts bu si ne ss , eve n i f th e witne ss is no t qua li fie d a s an ex pe rt u nd er Fe d. R. Ev id . 70 2. Se e Tam paBay Sh ip bu il di ng & Rep ai r Co . v. Ced ar Sh ip pi ng Co ., 32 0 F .3d12 13 , 12 23 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (“ Tam paBay’ s wit ne ss es tes ti fie d b as edup on th ei r pa rti cu la riz edkn owl ed ge ga rn eredfro m y ears of ex pe rie nc e withi n t he fie ld .”). Key pro vi de d s om e te st im on y ab ou t the ki ndof
co nduc t h e en ga ge d i n o r pe rs on al ly w it ne ss eddu rin g fr au du le ntm ortg ag e tra ns act io ns , andhe tes ti fie d abo uthi s p ers on al kn owl ed ge co nc ern in g the co nduc t of ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s i n t he m ortg ag e frau d s ch em e. He di d s o b as edonhi s o wn ex pe rie nc e. The m os t g en eral qu es ti on Key an swe redwas o ne po se d b y Grah am ’s
co un se l o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n abo utth e d efi ni ti on of a n o pt io n t o p ur ch as e rea l

money to give you for this option. W ould you do it for the valua ble consider ation that Iam g oing to g o out there a nd sell it to som ebody

else? So y ou would say y eah. T he option would g ive me ac tual rig hts to the tit le so that you couldn’t sell it duringthat period, but tec hnically Ihave —I

don’t own the prope rty . So if then I would g o and locate a buyer a nd Iwould g o to the next guy and I ’d say , hey , Scott’s house is worth 600,000. I ’ll take 550 for it. W ould you buy

it? He would say y es, so at the c losing I

make $200,000. About Gra

ham’s own testimony , we have this to say : “Def endants in cr iminal trials are not obliged to testify . And, a de fenda nt who chooses to pre sent a de fense runs a substantial risk of bolsteringthe Gover

nment’s ca se.” B rown, 53 F .3d at 314. Fur thermore , and “[m]os t important, a statement by a def endant, if disbelieve d by

the jury , may

be conside red a s substantive evidenc e of the defe ndant’s guilt.” I d. 27es ta te . Graha m can no t co m

pl ai n abo utth attes ti m on y gi ve n t ha t h e as ke d fo r it , an d i n h is own tes ti m on y he ex po un de d upo n h ow h e b el ie ve d o pt io ns work ed
. 9 The di stric t co urt d idno t err in pe rm it ti ng Key to tes ti fy as alay witn es s. Bec au se th e p artof Ke y ’s tes ti m on y th atwas e li ci te d b y

th e g ov ern m en t was ba se d o n h is own pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of m ortg ag e fraud , whi ch he ha d a cqui red th ro ug h h is ex pe rie nc e as a fo rm er re al est at e cl os in g a tt orne y who ha d e ng ag edin frau du le nttrans act io ns of t ha t n atur e, he di d n otha ve to be qu al ifi edas a n e xp ert
un de r Fed . R. Evi d. 7 02 . See Tam paBay Sh ip bu il di ng & Rep ai r Co ., 32 0 F .3dat 12 22 –2 3. AFFIRMED.

When Graha

m’s counsel a sked Ke y

to testify about options, counsel for the g overnme nt 9 objected on the basis of re levanc y , and Gr aham’ s counsel told the cour t: “Ican c onnect this with Mr. Gra ham’s testimony , J udg e, bec ause I believe that this t ransa ction did, in fact, involve a n option.” The district cour t overrule d the g overnme nt’s objection. Gra ham’s counse l asked Ke y , “Can a n option allow an individual to obtain a proper ty and sell it if they

don’t own it? ” Ke y ’s answe r wa s “No.” The jury was fr ee to we igh that testimony ag ainst Graha

m’s own, to cre dit the witness who see med more c redible, a nd to consider Gr aham’ s testimony , if disbelieved, a s substantive evidenc e of his guilt. S ee B rown, 53 F .3d at 314. 28