1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEHOADDAN WILSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cr-00028-JST-1 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Re: ECF No. 207

The court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu’s Report and Recommendation

that the Court grant John Jordan’s motion to withdraw and find that Defendant Jehoaddan Wilson 

has knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to counsel. ECF No. 207.1 The Court appointed 

attorney Robert Waggener for the limited purpose of making Wilson’s objections, if any, to 

Magistrate Judge Ryu’s report and recommendation. ECF No. 211. Defendant filed an objection, 

which the Court has now reviewed. ECF No. 221. 

In her objection, Defendant acknowledges that she has already received multiple warnings 

that her continued conduct would result in a finding of knowing and voluntary waiver. Id. at 2. 

She also acknowledges “authority for a finding of implied waiver of the right to counsel as a result 

of dilatory conduct hindering the efficient administration of justice.” Id. (citing United States v. 

Meeks, 987 F.2d 575, 579 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944, 954 (9th Cir. 

2007); United States v. Turner, 897 F.3d 1084, 1103 (9th Cir. 2018)). She provides no contrary 

authority. Instead, she argues only that she is “clearly not capable of competently and adequately 

representing herself at a trial” and that the Court should thus “indulge every reasonable 

1

Jordan has already been relieved as counsel, ECF No. 198 at 8; ECF No. 210 at 4-5, but the 

Court has yet to rule on the waiver issue. 

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 222 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights” and resolve any doubts “in favor 

of no waiver.” Id. (quoting Meeks, 987 F.2d at 579). 

Wilson has already been evaluated and deemed competent to stand trial, and so the Court 

does not address that issue here. ECF No. 166. As for her right to counsel, this Court and Judge 

Ryu warned Wilson repeatedly, over the course of more than one hearing, that she would waive 

her right to counsel if she continued to oppose and frustrate her appointed attorneys’

representation of her. She did so anyway. The record unambiguously supports the conclusion that 

Wilson knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to counsel. See Turner, 897 F.3d at 1104 (“In 

sum, if the record as a whole establishes that the defendant had sufficient information about the 

charges, penalties, and risks and disadvantages of proceeding pro se, and sufficient opportunity to 

be represented by counsel, a ‘defendant’s actions which have the effect of depriving himself of 

appointed counsel will establish a knowing and intentional choice.’”) (quoting United States v. 

Fazzini, 871 F.2d 635, 642 (7th Cir. 1989)). 

Accordingly, the Court overrules Wilson’s objection; finds Judge Ryu’s report to be 

correct, well-reasoned, and thorough; and adopts it in every respect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2020

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 222 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 2