2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-25-2010 

# Anthon y Alongi v . Michel le R

icc i P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-4419

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" An thon y Alon gi v . Miche l le R

ic c i " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1829. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1829Honora ble L ouis H. Poll ak, United States District Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Pennsylvania, sitting by

designation. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 06- 4419

_____________ A N T H O N Y A L O N G I,

A ppel l ant v. M IC H E L L E R IC C I; A D M IN IS T R A T O R , NE W J E RS E Y S T AT E P RI S ON; AT T OR NE Y GEN ERA L OF THE STATE O F NEW J ERSEY A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he

D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey N o. 02- cv- 03090 (D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le S tanleyR . C h esler) BE FO RE : M CK EE, H A RD I M A N , CI RC U I T J U D G ES

a n d P OL L AK DI S T RI CT J UDGE * A r gued February1, 2010 ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February25, 2010) P e rCu r i a m. A nt honyA l ongi appea l s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of the habe as pet i t i on he fi l ed p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . In h is p e tit io n , A lo n g i ar g u e d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t f a iled to ful fi l l i t s obl i gat i ons t o di s cl os e exc ul pat or yevi dence , t hatt he evi dence w as nots uffi ci entBe causewe grant Along i’s petition on the basis of the trial cour t’s denial of A longi’ s 1 ri ghtt o s e l f

- r ep r e s e nt at i o n , w ed o n o tc o n s i d e r th eo th e r gr o un d s A l o n g i a s s e rt s f o r r e l i e f . In pa rtic ula r, wedo no t c on sid e r h is c laim o f ins uf fi c ie nc y of thee vid e nc e . T hat c laim h a s a s it s predic ate our

decision last year , setting a side the murder and fe lony

murder c onvictions of Along i’s co-de fenda

nt, Paul Kamienski, as base d on insufficient e vidence . Kamienski v. Hendrick s, 332 Fe d
. Appx . 740 (3d Cir. 2009). It nece ssarily follows, so Along i contends, that his c onvic tio ns fo r t

hesamec ri me s are , f

or thesamere a so n, fl awe d. It is po ssiblethat A lon g i is correct, but wewould note that, in consideringKamienski’s ha beas pe tition, we did not perce ive Kamienski’s a

nd Along i’s case s as totally congruent. In Kam ie ns k i v . H e nd rick s we obse rved that “[t] herewas moretestimony at trial re g ardingevidenc e linking Along i . . . to the crimes.” Id. at 744. Howe ver, that observation is not entitled to any weight in addressingAlong i’s petition, since, as wenoted in Kam ie ns k i v . H e nd rick s, “only Kamienski’s a

ppeal is bef

ore us.” Id. at 744 n. 9. (In confiningour attention to Along i’s Six th Amendment claim, weare , of course , awa

re that a re versal based on trial error has conse quence s differing f rom the consequences of

a re versal based on insuffic iency of the e vidence . See V

ogel v. Penn sy lvan ia , 790 F.2d 368 ( 3d Cir. 1986) (a new trial may follow if the convic tion is vacated f or trial er ror, but is barre d by

double jeopardy

if the evide nce is found to beinsufficient).)

2 to su p p o rth is co n v ict ion s fo r m u rde r or f elon ym u rde r, that the tri al co u rt uncons t i tut i onal l ydeni ed hi s r eques tt o r epr es enthi m s el f att r i al , and thathi s t r i al couns el w as cons t i tut i onal l yi neff ect i ve. For t he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e conc l ude thatt he tr i al c o u rt v io late d A lo n g i’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t b yim p ro p e rlyd e n y in g h is re q u e st to re p re se n t h im se lf

a t trial. W e w ill th e re f o re re m a n d th is c a se to th e d istric t co u rt w ith i ns t ruct i ons t o gr anta condi t i onal w r i tfor t hw i t h or der i ng A l ongi ’ s r el eas e unl es s t he S tat e o f N ew Jerse yretri es h im w ith in 9 0 d ay s o f th e d ate o f th e a cc o m p an y ing o rde r. 1 B efor e w e di s cus s w hyr el i ef i s appr opr i at e her e, w e thi nk i ti m por t antt o not e that t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notgr anta C O A on t he i s s ue of w hetherA l ongi had bee n u n c o n stitu tio n a llyd e n ied th e rig h t to re p re se n t h im se lf. H o w e v e r, af ter A lo n g i f

iled h is pro se appea l i n t hi s cour t , w e appoi nt ed A m i cus couns el . T he or derappoi nt i ng A m i cus pr ovi ded: "I n addi t i on t o anyot heri s s ues ami cus cur i ae w i s hes t o r ai s e, ami cus cur i aeSeeTh ird Ci rcuit L .A .R. 22 .1 (b ) “ I f t

hedis tric t c ourt

gra nts a c e rtif ic ateof a pp e a la bil ity 2 as to only some issues, the cour

t of appe als will not consider uncertified issues unless appe llant first seeks, a

nd the cour

t of appe als grants, certification of additional issues. . . . Notwithst anding the above , the merits pane l may expand the cer

tificate of appealability

as re quired in the circ umstances of

a par ticular c ase.” See also Villot v. Varner , 373 F.3d 327, 337 ( 3d Cir. 2004) (“We may

not consider issues on a

ppeal that a

re not within the scopeof the c ertificate of appealability

. . . . However, the merits panel may expand the scope of

the COA beyond the scope a nnounced by

the motions panel. . . . [T] he merits panel may expand the COA sua sponte. ”). 3 s houl d addr es s t he fol l ow i ng i s s ue: w hetherA l ongi ' s r i ghtt o s el f- r epr es ent at i on undert he S ix th A m e n d m e n t w a s v io la te d b yth e tr ia l c o u rt . Fa re tta v . C a lif o rn ia , 422 U . S. 806 (1 9 7 5 ); B uhlv. C ooks ey , 2 3 3 F .3 d 7 8 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ).” B e c a u se w e sp e c if ica lly r e q u e s t e d b r i e f

i n g o n t h i s i s s u e , we n o w n o str a sp o n te b ro a d e n th e C O A to in c lu d e it. 2

I . Backg r ound I nas m uch as w e ar e w r i t i ng pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he hi s t or yof thi s cas e, w e nee d onl ybr i efl ys etfor t h t he fa ctual and pr ocedur al hi s t or yof th is a p p e a l. I n 1987, a N ew J er s eygr and j ur yi ndi ct ed J os eph M ar s i eno, Paul K ami ens ki , and A n th o n yA lo n g i f

o r t h e 1 9 8 3 m u rd e rs o f

H e n ry (“ N ic k ” ) a n d B a rb a ra D e T o u rn a y , a m arr i ed coupl e fr om w hom M ar s i eno and A l ongi had arr anged t o pur chas e a l ar ge amount of coc ai ne. A tt r i al , t he governm enti nt r oduced e vi dence t hatM ar s i eno ki l l ed the D e T o u rn a y s ra th e r th a n p a yf o r th e c o c a in e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t als o in tro d u c e d e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f

its th e o ryth a t K a m ien sk i an d A lo n g i ac ted a s M a rsie n o ’s a c c o m p lice s in com m i t t i ng t hese m urders . A l l t hree defen dan t s w ere s ub sequen t l ycon vict ed o f fi rs t4

d e g re e m u rd e r, f

e lo n ym u rd e r, an d c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss c o c a in e w ith th e in ten t to d is tr ib u te . A t tr ia l, A lo n g i w a s re p re s e n te d b yJ a c k R u s s e ll, a p ri v a te ly-re ta in e d a tto rn e y . P ri o r t o re ta in in g R u s s e ll, A lo n g i h a d a p p lie d f o r r e p re s e n ta tio n b ya p u b lic d e f e n d e r. H o w e v e r, t h e p u b lic d e f e n d e r’ s o f

f ic e f o u n d A lo n g i in e lig ib le f o r i ts s e rv ic e s . A p p . 3 0 9 . A lo n g i th e n a rra n g e d f

o r R u ss e ll t o re p re se n t h im a t trial, alth o u g h A lo n g i ap p a re n tly pai d R us s el l foronl ya s m al l por t i on of hi s s er vi ces . A pp. 330- 31. B e f o re ju ryse lec tio n , A lo n g i ch a n g e d h is m in d a b o u t w a n tin g R u ss e ll as h is couns el and s o i nfor m ed R us s el l . T her eaf t er , R us s el l t ol d t he tr i al cour t : “[a ] s a r es ul tof a conve r s at i on I had y es t er daybyt el ephone w i t h M r . A l ongi , i ti s M r . A l ongi ’ s pos i t i on and r eques tt hatI be di s char ged and M r . A l ongi be perm i t t ed t o r epr es enthi m s el f. ” A pp. 330. T he courtr es ponded byas ki ng A l ongi fort he bas i s of hi s r eques t . A l ongi ans w er ed: For l ack of

i nt er es ti n t he ca s e, Y ourH onor . A nd I have ha d m anym ot i ons puti n, and I neverhear d not hi ng. I don’ ts ee the man. H e don’ tcome — h e c o m e v is it m e , g e t th is to g e th e r, a n d m o s tly la c k o f in te re s t. A nd I can unde r s t and M r . R us s el l ’ s l ack of i nt er es tbeca us e of the m oneys i tuat i on; butot herw i s e, I fee l I ’ m t he mast erof m yow n fat e, Y our H onor . I ’ m notgoi ng t o m ake nobodyel s e hur tm e. A p p . 3 3 0 -3 1 . T h e trial c o u rt n e x t as k e d A lo n g i n u m e ro u s q u e stio n s a b o u t h is a b ili tyto eff ect i vel yr epr es enthi m s el f. T he j udge i nqui r ed i nt o w hetherA l ongi w as a mem berof t he B ar , how farhe w enti n s chool , w hathe di d fora l i vi ng, and w hetherhe had p re v io u slyre p re se n ted h im se lf in a trial. A p p . 3 3 1 -3 2 . F in a lly , the c o u rt a sk e d R u ss e llIt a pp e ars that th etria l c ourt

c on fu se d th ea

bu seof dis c re tio n s tand ard

wh ic h w ou ld 3 normally g overn a reque st to subst itute counsel, with the standard g overninginvocation of the constitutional right to proc eed pro s e , which, as e xplained below, is not subject to the c ourt’s discretion. 5 w hetherhe w as pr epar ed t o pr ocee d w i t h t he tr i al as pl anned. A pp. 332. A ft erm aki ng t hes e i nqui r i es , t he courtdeni ed A l ongi ’ s r eques tt o r epr es ent h im se lf. T h e c o u rt e x p lain e d :

A p p lica tio n f

o r su b stitu tio n o f

M r. A lo n g i as c o u n se l p ro se is a d d re ss e d to th e so u n d d isc re tio n o f th e T ria l C o u rt. . . . I a m to 3 cons i derw hetheral l ow i ng t he r eques tcoul d i nt er fer e w i t h t he o rd e rlytrial o f

th e c a se , w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n t is c o m p e ten t to conducthi s ow n defe ns e and t o as s ur e hi m s el f of a fai rt r i al , cons i der t he g ravi t yof the off

ense, t he n ature and ser i ou sness of t he ch arges, a n d w h e th e r, in th e in ter e st o f ju stic e , co u n se l’s re p re se n tatio n is nece s s ary , and w hethert her e appe ar[t o be] anyot herfac t s or c irc u m sta n c e s w h ich w o u ld in ter f e re w ith a f

a ir a n d o rd e rly pr es ent at i on of the ca s e. I have r evi ew ed the natur e of the cha r ges . . . . T hey , of cour s e, [ar e] fi r s tdegr ee mur der , among ot herchar ges . I have be en aff or ded, t hr ough couns el , . . . s om e ac ces s t o t he natur e and ci r cumst ance s of the pr oofs , w hi ch ar e compl i cat ed. I have be en gi ven w i t nes s l i s t s . . . w hi ch ar e ext ens i ve and s ugges ta good dea l of pr epar at i on i s r equi r ed. I h a v e h a d th e o p p o rt u n ity to c o n f e re n c e w ith c o u n s e l . . . I am sat i s fi ed thati n al l r es pect s , M r . R us s el l i s pr epar ed, has pr epar ed the c ase an d is i n a p o sit ion to p rov ide a n ef fe cti v e d ef

en se f o r M r. A lo n g i. I a m n o t sa tisf

ied th a t M r. A lo n g i, by rea so n o f h is back groun d, and given t he n ature and ci rcum st ances o f t hese c h a rg e s, is in a p o sitio n a d e q u a telya n d e f f e c tiv e lyto a ss u re h im se lf a f a ir trial. U n d e r th o se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e a p p lica tio n f o r su b stitu tio n is deni ed. A pp. 332- 34.6

A lo n g i ar g u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt’s a c tio n s w e re a v io latio n o f h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to re p re s e n t h im s e lf , a n d th a t w e m u s t th e re f o re v a c a te h is c o n v ic tio n . W e agr ee. I I . T he R i ght t o Sel f - R epres ent at i on at T ri al I n Fa re tta v . C a lif

o rn ia , 422 U . S. 806 ( 1975) , t he Supr eme C our thel d t hatt he Si xt h A m endment r i ghtt o couns el i ncl udes t he r i ghtt o pr ocee d w ith o u t c o u n s e l. A l t hough “court s [m us t ] i ndul ge eve r yr eas onabl e pr es um pt i on” aga i ns ta w ai verof c o u n s e l, Joh nson v. Zerbst , 304 U . S. 458, 464 ( 1938) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m a rk s o m itt e d ), o n c e a d e f e n d a n t “c lea rlya n d u n e q u iv o c a lly ” d e c lar e s h e r/h is d e sire to pr ocee d pro se , th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s ro le is q u ite lim ite d . Fa re tta , 4 2 2 U . S . at 83 5 . T h e c o u rt m us tconfi r m t hatt he ac cus ed “know i ngl yand i nt el l i gent l y ” for goes t he s ubs t ant i al benef i t s of couns el , and i tm us tm ake the def endant“aw ar e of the dange r s and di s advant ages of s el f- r epr es ent at i on, s o t hatt he r ecor d w i l l es t abl i s h t hathe know s w hat he i s doi ng and hi s choi ce i s m ade w i t h ey es open. ” See i d. ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). O n ce itis cl ea r th at t h e d ef en d an t’ s ey es a re o p en , the c o u rt m us tper m i tt he def

endantt o r epr es enther/hi m s el f, and anyaddi t i onal i nqui r yi nt o t he d e f e n d a n t’ s f

itn e s s to d o s o is a s ir re le v a n t a s it is im p ro p e r. T he r i ghtt o pr ocee d w i t houtcouns el t her efor e oper at es qui t e di ffe r ent l yt han the rig h t to p ro c e e d w ith c o u n se l. T h e latte r a ttac h e s a u to m a tica llya n d m a yb e w a iv e d o n ly b ya n a f f irm a tiv e , k n o w in g , an d in tellig e n t w a iv e r. T h e f o rm e r d o e s n o t atta c h u n les s it isTh estatea lso argue s th at A lon g i f a ile d to raisethi s c laim i n h is h a be a s p e tition . T his is 4 no t an is su eof

“ e xha us tio n”a s th edis tric t c ourt is o bv iou sly

no t a statec ourt . N on e the le ss, if Al on g i di d n ot ra isethi s c laim i n h is p e tition , w ec e rt a inly c ou ld n ot c on sid e r i t. Wethink it clea r, howe ver, that Alongi did raise this claim in his habeas petition. Along i’s habea s petition plainly states that Along i reque sts relief ba sed on the de nial of his “right to procee d pro se.”App. 70. It continues: “Petitioner aske d for c ounsel to be re lieved and for permission to repre sent himself. Permission was denied.” Id. Although thecounsel Along i retaine d to draft the brief in support of his habe as petition at the district court leve l failed to a rguethi s p oint, A lon g i su bmitte d to thedis tric t c ourt a le ngthy su pp le mental pro s ebrief, c lari fy ingthat hewa s also a ssertinga c laim b a se d o n th etria l c ourt ’s de nial of his ri ght t o proce ed pro s e . App. 184-95. Along i specifically ref erred to Fa re tta at le a st f

our time s in

thi s supplemental brief

, and objec ted to the denial of his right to proc eed pro s eat least a s many times. Id. The district cour

t noted in its opi nion that it had considere d the arguments Along i made in h is s up pleme ntal su

bmi ssi on s. Th edis tric t c ourt faile d to dis c e rn

from t he sesu bmi ssi on s, ho we ve r, that in

a dditi on to h is c laim o f ine ff

e c tiv ea ssi sta

nc eof c ouns e l, A lon g i w a s also raisinga claim under Fa re tta . The district cour t’s failureto rec ognize the Fa re tta claim does not a lter t hefac t th at th ec laim w a s b e fo rethec ourt . 7 c lea rlya ss e rte d . A lth o u g h th e tw o rig h ts a re o p p o site sid e s o f th e sa m e S ix th A m e n d m e n t c o in , th e yre q u ir e v e ry d if f e re n t in q u ir ie s . A lon g i argu es th at w e m u st va ca te his co n v ict ion b ec au se th e tri al co u rt im p ro p e rlyd e n ied h im th e rig h t to re p re se n t h im se lf. T h e sta te m a k e s th re e a rg u m e n ts in r es pons e. T he s t at e ar gues t hatt he cl ai m i s notpr oper l ybefor e us beca us e A l ongi fai l ed to e x h a u st th e c laim o n d ire c t ap p e a l in th e sta te c o u rts o f N e w Je rse y , th a t A lo n g i d id

4 not“cl ear l yand unequi vocal l y ” as s er thi s r i ghtt o r epr es enthi m s el f, and thatt he tr i al cour t ’ s act i ons w er e notcontr aryt o cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw . W e r ej ecteac h of t hese argum ents . A . A l on gi E x h au st ed H i s Fa re tta c la im U n d er the A n ti terrori sm an d E ff ec ti v e D ea th P en alt yA ct (“A E D P A ”), “[a ]n8

appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus on behal f of a per s on i n cus t odypur s uantt o t he ju d g m e n t o f

a S ta te c o u rt s h a ll n o t b e g ra n te d u n le s s it a p p e a rs th a t . . . the appl i cant has
ex h a u ste d

th e re m e d ies a v a ila b le in th e c o u rts o f th e S ta te [. ] ” 28 U . S. C . § 2254( b) ( 1) ( emphasi s added) . I n or derfora cl ai m t o be exha us t ed, i tm us thave be en fa i r l ypr es ent ed t o t he s t at e court s t hr ough “one c om pl et e r ound of the St at e’ s es t abl i s hed appe l l at e r evi ew pr oces s . ” N

ar a v. Fr ank , 488 F. 3d 187, 197 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) . E xhaus t i on underA E D PA r equi r es t hats t at e pr i s oner s gi ve s t at e court s a “

fa iroppor tuni t yt o acton t hei rcl ai m s . ” O ’S u lliv a n v . B o e r c ke l, 52 6 U. S. 8 3 8 , 8 4 4 (1 9 9 9 ). T o d o so , a p e tit io n e r n e e d o n ly“ d e sc rib e in th e sta te p ro c e e d in g s b o th t he oper at i ve fa ct s and the fe der al l egal t heoryon w hi ch hi s cl ai m i s bas ed s o t hatt he sta te c o u rts h a v e a f

a ir o p p o rtu n ityto a p p lyc o n tro lli n g leg a l p rin c ip les to th e f a c ts bear i ng upon hi s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m . ” D avis v. Si l va , 5 1 1 F . 3 d 1 0 0 5 , 1 0 0 9 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). M o re o v e r, pr o s e su b m issi o n s are hel d t o l es s s t r i ngents t andar ds t han w e expe ctof att or ney s t r ai ned i n t he l aw and l egal d ra f tin g . H ai nes v. Ker ner , 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 (1 9 7 2 ). T he st at e argues t hat A l on gi fai l ed to fai rl ypresenthis Fa re tta cl ai m t o t he N ew J er s eyA ppel l at e D i vi s i on i n t he pro se b rie f h e su b m itt e d o n d ire c t ap p e a l. A c c o rd in g to th e sta te, A lo n g i’s a rg u m e n t in th a t b rie f th a t h e w a s d e n ied h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to couns el addr es s ed onl yt he more fami l i arSi xt h A m endment cl ai m of i neff ect i ve assistan ce o f c o u n sel u n d er Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668 ( 1984) , and di d not9

fa ir lyp rese n t anyclaim u n d er Fa re tta . If A l on gi’ s pr o s e b r i e f h a d d i s c u s s e d o n l y Str i ckland , w e w oul d agr ee w i t h t he s t at e’ s ar gum ent ; how ever , A l ongi ’ s s ubm i s s i on w as notr es t r i ct ed t o S tr ic k la n d
. A l ongi enti t l ed the fi rs tpo i nt of hi s pro se br i ef “ I neff ect i ve A s s i s t ance of C ouns el T hr ough G overnm entI nt er fer ence . ” I n t hi s s ect i on, A l ongi di s cus s ed numer ous fac t or s w hi ch he c o n ten d e d a m o u n ted to th e d e n ial o f c o u n se l u n d e r th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. A lo n g i d id ar gue thathi s t r i al couns el , R us s el l , w as i neff ect i ve undert he s t andar d s etfor t h by Str i ckland . H o w e v e r, A lo n g i als o ar gued thatt he tr i al cour tvi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o couns el bydeny i ng hi s r eques tt o pr ocee d pro se . A l ongi s t at ed: “[i ] n eval uat i ng actual , and or cons t ruct i ve [de ni al of the r i ghtt o couns el ] . W e s i m pl yl ook att he fi r s tdayof tr i al . See th is a p p e n d ix , tr a n s c ri p t o f O c to b e r 1 8 , 1 9 8 8 , p a g e s 7 th ro u g h 1 1 . W hen appel l antw as d e n iedto tra v e l p ro -se , a n d M r. R u ss e ll w a s fo rc e d

o n h im .” A p p . 2 3 7 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). A lo n g i n o te d a t v a ri o u s o th e r p la c e s in h is b ri e f th a t R u s s e ll h a d b e e n f o rc e d u p o n h im . H e a lso c ited to th o se p a g e s o f th e trial tra n sc rip t in w h ich h is re q u e st to re p re se n t h im se lf w as deni ed, and copi es of thos e page s w er e att ache d t o hi s br i ef. W e t herefore con cl ud e t hat A l on gi exhau st ed h i s Far et t a cl ai m . A l ongi pr es ent ed th e o p e ra tiv e f

a c ts o f h is c laim to th e A p p e llate D iv isio n b yc iti n g to a n d p ro v id in g it w ith th e re lev a n t p a g e s o f

th e trial tra n sc rip t, an d A lo n g i p re se n ted th e c laim ’s le g a l b a sis to t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on bys t at i ng t hathe w as deni ed the r i ghtt o “tr avel pr o- s e” a nd r efe r enci ng t he Si xt h A m endment . W e know of no ca s e thatw oul d s uppor tt he10

propo si t i on t hat A l on gi’ s effort s, especi al l yi n li gh tof h i s pr o s e s t atus , w er e not s uffi ci entt o i nfor m t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on t hathe w as r ai s i ng a Far et t a c l a i m.

B . A l ongi C l e ar l y and U ne qui vo c al l y A s s e r t e d H i s R i ght T he s t at e s econdl yar gues t hatA l ongi nevercl ear l yand unequi vocal l yexpr es s ed a des i r e t o r epr es enthi m s el f att r i al . A s not ed above , t he r i ghtt o pr ocee d w i t houtcouns el o n lyatt ac h es w h en ith as b ee n clea rl yan d u n eq u ivo ca ll yex p resse d . H o w ev er, th e re co rd of the pr ocee di ngs befor e the tr i al cour tes t abl i s hes t hatA l ongi di d cl ear l yand unequi vocal l yexpr es s hi s des i r e t o pr ocee d pro se . T he thrus tof the s t at e’ s ar gum entt o t he contr aryi s t w o- fol d. I tar gues t hat A l ongi ’ s r eques tcannotbe r ead a s cl earand unequi vocal bot h beca us e A l ongi had pr evi ous l yas ked t o be r epr es ent ed bycouns el , and bec aus e A l ongi ’ s r eques tw as m oti vated byhis dis sat i sfact i on w i t h R ussel l , his ret ai ned cou nsel . N ei t her of these ar gum ent s ar e convi nci ng. Fi r s t , w e do nott hi nk t hat , undert hes e ci r cumst ance s , the fa ctt hatA l ongi once des i r ed couns el m ade hi s ul t i m at e r eques tt o pr ocee d pr o s e uncl earorequi vocal . A l ongi cons i s t ent l yr eques t ed couns el ; how ever , he di d notr eques tR us s el l . R ather , he r eques t ed re p re se n tatio n b yth e p u b lic d e f e n d e r’s o f

f ice . T h a t o f

f ice d e n ied h is re q u e st, a n d o n ly t hen did A l on gi r et ai n R ussel l . A ft er observi ng R ussel l ’s perform ance in pre- t ri al m at t ers , A lo n g i d e c id e d th a t h e w o u ld ra th e r re p re se n t h im se lf th a n p ro c e e d w ith R u ss e ll as h is a tto rn e y . A lo n g i’s d e sire to d o so w a s th e n c lea rlya n d u n e q u iv o c a llyc o m m u n ica ted to11

t he courtbybot h R us s el l and A l ongi . A l ongi ’ s r eques tdoes notbecome l es s cl earand unequi vocal s i m pl ybeca us e he ha d pr evi ous l yacc ept ed r epr es ent at i on bycouns el , or r eques t ed i tof the publ i c def ender ’ s offi ce. T hatbackgr ound i s cert ai nl yr el evantt o our a n a lysis b u t it is n o t c o n c lu s iv e . A ddi t i onal l y , t he fa ctt hatA l ongi w as m ot i vat ed t o pr ocee d pro se beca us e he w as d issati sfied w ith retaine d co u n sel i s o f o n lyp assin g co n seq u en ce , at m o st, u n d er Fa re tta . I n B uhlv. C ooks ey , 233 F. 3d 783 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , w e expl ai ned thatal m os tal l r eques t s for pro se rep rese n tat ion w il l ari se f rom d issati sfa cti o n w ith tr ial co u n sel. “It i s the rare defe ndantw ho w i l l as k t o pr ocee d pro se e v e n th o u g h h e /sh e is th o ro u g h lyd e lig h ted w ith couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on, abi l i t y , and pr epar at i on. ” I d. at794. T hus , t hata def endant w i s hes t o pr ocee d w i t houtr epr es ent at i on beca us e s / he i s di s s at i s fi ed w i t h t hat r epr es ent at i on i s notus ual l yr el evantt o w hethert hatdefe ndant ’ s r eques ti s cl earand u n e q u iv o c a l. In f

a c t, F a re tta w a s a lso m o tiv a ted b yh is c o n c e rn s a b o u t th e q u a lityo f h is re p re se n tatio n . F a re tta s tate d th a t “h e d id n o t w a n t to b e re p re se n ted b yth e p u b lic defe nd er because he beli eved t hat that offi ce w as veryl oad ed d ow n w i t h a h eavycase l oad. ” Fa re tta , 4 2 2 U .S . a t 8 0 7 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ). T hi s r ecor d es t abl i s hes t hather e, as i n Fa re tta , A lo n g i’s d iss a tisf a c tio n w ith d e f e n se c o u n se l d id n o t d im in ish th e f a c t th a t h e c lea rlya ss e rte d th a t h e w a n ted to r epr es enthi m s el f att r i al , r athert han pr ocee d w i t h couns el . A l ongi ’ s r eques t , t hough in a rtf u l, w a s s u f

f icie n t to c o n v e yth a t d e sire to th e trial ju d g e , an d th e ju d g e c lea rlyUn de r AED PA, “ an a pp lic atio n f

or a writ o f h a

be a s c or pu s o n b e half

of a pe rs on in 5 c us tod y purs ua nt t o th ejudgme nt o f a

Statec ourt

sh a ll n ot b egra

nte d w ithre sp e c t to any

c laim that w a s a dju dic ate d o n th eme ri ts i n St atec ourt proc e e din g s unle ss t

hea dju dic atio n o f t

hec laim

. . . re su lte d in

a de c isi on that w a s c ontrary

to, or inv olv e d a

n unre a so na

blea pp lic atio n o f, c le arly e sta bli sh e d F e de ral la

w, a s d e te rm ine d b y

theSup remeCourt

of theUn ite d St ate s[.]”28 U. S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). A s tatec ourt de c isi on is “ c ontrary

to”c le arly

e sta bli sh e d f e de ral la w i f “ thestate c ourt a pp lie s a rulethat c ontra dic ts theg ov e rn inglaw s e t f or th in [Su pre meCourt ] ca se s”or

if “the statecourt c onfronts a se t of fac ts that are materially indisti nguishable from a dec ision of [the SupremeCourt] and nevertheless a rrives at a re sult different from [that] prec edent.” W illiams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000). Astate cour t decision unrea sonably

applies c le arly e sta bli sh e d f e de ral la w i f i t c or re c tly identi fi e s th e“ g ov e rn ingle g a l r ulefrom [Su

pre me Court] case s but unreasona bly applies it to the fac ts of the par ticular state prisoner’s c ase.” Id. at 407. 12 under s t ood t hatA l ongi w as as ki ng t o for ego couns el and pr ocee d pro se . A s w e sta ted in B uhl , a “de fenda ntneed notr eci t e s om e t al i s m ani c form ul a hopi ng t o open the ey es and ea rs of the c o u rtto h is r eq u est t o inv o k e h is/h er S ixth A m en d m en t r igh ts un d er Fa re tta . ” 2 3 3 F .3 d a t 7 9 2 (in ter n a l cita tio n s a n d q u o tatio n s m a rk s o m itt e d ). W e a c c o rd in g ly concl ude thatA l ongi di d as s er thi s Si xt h A m endment r i ghtt o s el f- r epr es ent at i on. C . T h e T ri al C ou rt’ s Fa re tta C ol l oquy W as C ont rary t o C l earl y E s t abl i s hed F ederal L aw F in a lly , the sta te a rg u e s th a t ev e n if A lo n g i cle a rlya n d u n e q u iv o c a llya ss e rte d h is ri g h t t o rep rese n t him self, th e tri al co u rt ’s ac ti o n s in d en y ing that req u est w ere n o t con tr ary t o o ra n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d f

e d e r a l l a w u n d e rAE DP A. 5 T he st at e argues t hat the tr i al cou rt ’s Far et t a col l oquy w as notcontr aryt o oran u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d f

e d e ra l la w o n s e lf

-r e p re s e n ta tio n . A ccor di ng t o t he s t at e, t he tr i al cour tpr oper l yas s es s ed i n i t s col l oquyt he “ba ckgr ound,13

exper i ence , and conduc t ” of A l ongi , fac t or s t hata courti s r equi r ed t o cons i derby Johns on . T he s t at e mai nt ai ns t hatt he tr i al court ’ s i nqui ryw as notaboutw hetherA l ongi h a d th e “ leg a l tec h n ica l k n o w led g e ” to re p re se n t h im se lf , b u t ra th e r, w h e th e r “ h is backgr ound and expe r i ence i n cons i der at i on of al l t he ci r cumst ance s l eadi ng up t o O ct ober 18, 2009 w oul d j us t i fya w ai verof couns el . ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . 26. T he s t at e ar gues t hatt he tr ial co u rt ’s de cisi o n , in li g h t of thes e f ac tors, to d en yA lon g i’ s req u est ca n n o t be c o n tr ary t o o ra n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d f

e d e r a l l a w. T h e state’s arg u m en t i s sim p lyu n tena b le. T h e tri al co u rt ’s ha n d li n g o f A lon g i’ s req u est t o rep rese n t him self w as w o ef u ll yinad eq u ate u n d er Fa re tta . T h e tri al co u rt e n tirelym iss tate d th e a p p lica b le s tan d a rd , an d in c o rre c tlya ss e rte d th a t th e d e c isio n to per m i ta def

endantt o pr ocee d pro se fel l w i t hi n t he court ’ s di s cr et i on. I n deny i ng A l ongi ’ s r eques t , t he tr i al cour tneveronce ment i oned Fa re tta ori t s s ol e r equi r ement t hat th e w a iv e r o f

th e rig h t to c o u n se l b e k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar y . In a d d iti o n , the c o u rt d id n o th in g to a p p ra is e A lo n g i o f th e ri s k s o f

s e lf re p re s e n ta tio n . T h e sta te is c o rre c t th a t Johns on d ir ec ts co u rt s to c o n side r a d ef en d an t’ s

“ b a c k g ro u n d , ex p e rie n c e , an d c o n d u c t” in th e ir c o llo q u ies . 3 0 4 U .S . at 4 6 4 . In q u iryin to thes e f ac tors, h o w ev er, m u st be d ir ec ted to w ard s d eterm ining w h ethe r th e d ef en d an t’ s w a iv e r is k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar y , n o t to w a rd s w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n t h a s “

ju stif ied ” h is r eques t , ori s capa bl e of r epr es ent i ng her/ hi m s el f. H er e, t he tr i al cour tfocus ed s ol el yon w hetherA l ongi w oul d be a s ki l l ful advoca t e. T hati s di r ect l ycontr aryt o Fa rett a ’s14

expl anat i on t hata def

endant ’ s “t echni cal l egal know l edge” i s s i m pl ynotr el evantt o “an as s es s m entof hi s know i ng exer ci s e of the r i ghtt o defe nd hi m s el f. ” 422 U . S. at836. W e a re n o t ob li v iou s to the co n ce rns th at m o ti v ated the tri al co u rtto d en yA lon g i’ s r eques t . T he tr i al cour t ’ s conce r n t hatA l ongi r ece i ve a f ai rt r i al i s under s t andabl e and w ou l d o t herw i se be co m m end able. N evert heles s, as Fa re tta ex p lai n s, a d ef en d an t’ s r eques tt o w ai ve the r i ghtt o couns el and pr ocee d pro se cannotbe deni ed bec aus e the c o u r tb e l i e v e s t h a tt h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c h o i c e i s i l l - a d v i s e d . S u c h a c h o i c e i s a l m o s ta l w a ys i l l - advi s ed. N evert hel es s , as t he C our texpl ai ned i n Fa re tta : “al t hough [a de fenda nt ] m ay conducthi s ow n defe ns e ul t i m at el yt o hi s ow n detr i m ent , hi s choi ce mustbe honor ed out of thatr es pectfort he i ndi vi dual w hi ch i s t he l i febl ood of the l aw . ” 422 U . S. at834 (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). W e th e re f

o re c o n c lu d e th a t th e trial c o u rt’s f a ilu re to c o n d u c t an a p p ro p ria te Fa re tta c o l l o q u ywa s c o n t r a r yt o c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d f e d e r a l l a w. I I I . C oncl usi on F o r re a so n s w e h a v e d isc u ss e d , the trial c o u rt’s d e n ial o f A lo n g i’s S ix th A m en d m en t r igh t t o rep rese n t him self d o es n o t surv ive s cru ti n yev en u n d er A E D P A ’s d e f e re n tial sta n d a rd . W e w ill th e re f o re re m a n d th is c a se to th e d istric t co u rt w ith i ns t ruct i ons t o gr anta condi t i onal w r i tor der i ng A l ongi ’ s r el eas e unl es s t he St at e of N ew Jerse yretri es h im w ith in 9 0 d ay s o f th e d ate o f th e a cc o m p an y ing o rde r.