## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3243 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J EFFRE Y R. B ERRY, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 03 C R 961

—Jam es B. Z agel, Judg e.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 23, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AY 13, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd K ANN E a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . T r i alj udg es s o m et i m es fi nd them sel ves b et w een a r ockand a har d place

. Our sy ste m is on e o f co m p et in g rig h ts an d in te re st s, an d it falls up on j ud ges to st ri ke the a pp ro pri ate ba lan ce. W hen j ud g e s r e nd e r th e i r de c i s i o ns , o ne s i de ma y fe e ldi s a ppoi nted, the othe r sat i sfi ed; o ne party m ay consi der a n appeal, th e ot h eri s happy to st and pat. Occasi onal l y, though, we see a shi ft in thi s patt er n. I n cer tai n si tuati ons,2 N o. 07

- 3243 the l aw i s s tr uctured so th at a par ty has g ro und s t o ap p ea l rega rdless of w he th er the j ud ge ruled f or orag ai nst hi m . The c as e we c o ns i d er to d ay i s a pr et tyg o o d e xampl e o ftha t phe no m en o n. J e ff r e y Be r r y, the de fe nd a nti n a c r i mi na l fr a ud c a s e, insi st ed o n r epr es en tinghi m se l fa t tr i al

. Ofte n a f o o l ’s m ove , the j ud ge had m or e re aso n than usua l to q uesti on th e dec i si o n be ca us e Ber r y sh o wed si g ns o f del us i o n. H em m ed i n by th e C onsti tuti on o n both si des

— a defen d a n ti n a c r i mi n a l c a s e h a s th e r i g h tt o r e p r e s e n th i mse l f, b uthe c an ’ t ev ens ta nd t r i ali fhe i s so wanti ng f orm entalco m pet ence that the pr oce edi ngs woul d be fu n d am en ta l l y u n fair

— th e di st r i ctj udg e he r e di d the be sthe c o ul d wi ththe ha nd th at was de al t to hi m . The j ud ge al l owed Berr y t o run the sho w but onl y a ftersa ti sfyi ng hi m sel fthat B er rywas m ental l y c om petent. N ow that Berr y’ s l ega l sk i ll s hav e pr ove d unequ alto the tas k, he a sk s us t o o ve r tur n h i s co nv i ct i o n, a r g ui ngtha t th e j ud g e sh o ul d n o th a v e a l l o we d h i m t o p r o c e e d pro se . W e are su re th at if th e j ud ge ha d refused Be rry’s requ e s t, f o r ced a l aw yer d ow n h is throat, and a j ury ended up co nvi cti ng hi m , we w ou ld see an a pp ealj ust the s am e. Be r r y ’ s p a th t o c o ur t s t a r t e d i n 1 9 9 7 whe n he f o un de d a sh am bus i ne ss c al l ed “B & B Con su l ting, L td

. ” The fr au d w as fa irl y s i m ple

. Berr y t ol d seve ra l would-b e e ntre prene ur s th athe ha d a cc es s to b i ll i o ns o fdo l l ar s i n fundi ng j ust wai ti ng to be used. H i s cl i ents si m plyhad to pay an ad vance fee, usual l y in the nei ghborhood o f$2 5, 000, and they coul d ob tai n l oans ofvi rtual l y unl i m i ted si ze.N o. 07

- 3243 3 I ncre dibl e a s that m ay sound, Berr y s pu n a y ar n that ma n a g e d t o c o n v i n c e n o fe we r tha n 1 2 v i c t i ms . He cl ai m ed to ha ve co nne ct i o ns wi th Phi l l i ps El ec tr o ni cs , the I nt erna ti o na l M o ne ta r y F und, Presiden t Bi l l Cl i nt o n, the Treas ury Departm ent, and sev er ali nter nati onalbank s. So thr ough l i ttl e m or e than nam e- dropping, fi nanci al j argo n, a nd un fl appabl e co nfi den ce , Be r r y s ec ur ed th e a d v a n c e fe e s . A n d w h e n h e f a i l e d t o d e l i v e r o n h i s p r o mi se s o ffundi nga nd hi s vi ct i m s s tarted t o g r um bl e, he j ust m ade up a new s to ry . H e e nsured hi s cl i ents that th e m oneywas on i ts w ay, but gl obalev ents ( l i ke ten sions in th e M idd le E ast and th e G -7 Con ferenc e) w ere s l o wi n g th i n g s u p a b i t
. I n r e a l i t y, B e r r y wa s j u s twi th

d ra w i n g t h e fu n d s a s t h ey ca m e in, tu rn in g a n ov er all profi t o fnear l y $ 150, 000. T h e g r a v y t r a i n c a me t o a s c r e e c h i n gh a l ti n 2 0 0 3 , h o wever, w he n the govern m en t ch arged B erry w it h w ire f ra ud

. H e was co nvi cted aftera j ury tr ial an d sentence d to 1 1 y e a r s i n c us t o dy f o l l o we d b y 5 y e a r s o fs up e r v i s ed re l eas e. Bu t the i m portan t th ing f orus i s nei therthe cri m e no r th e ou tc om e. A s w e say , B er ry c h os e to re p re s e n t h i m se lf at trial, and now he cont ends the cour t s houl d have prohibi ted that . B er ry( now , o fco urse , with t op- notch law yers

— C olle en Sor en se n a n d P au l G ar c ia

— fro m C h ic ag o’s K irk lan d an d E llis law firm ) cla im s t h e re c or d is rife w ith ev id en c e t h at h e l a c k ed co m p et en c e t o a c t a s h is own co unsel

. The di str i ct c ourti gnor ed thi s evi dence, Berr y a rgues, bec ause the j u d ge bel i eve d Berryhad an “abs o l ut e r i g ht ” to r epr es en t hi m se l f

. A s Ber r y s ee s i t, the4 N o. 07

- 3243

cour t thought that s o l ong as he wa s co m petent to st an d tri ali t had no choi ce b ut to i nd ulg e hi s pl eas ure. I n li gh t of Indi ana v. Edward s , ___ U.S.___, 12 8 S
. Ct. 23 79 ( 2 0 0 8 ) , h e s a y s tha tv i e w i s c o ns t i t ut i o na l l y fl a we d. T o be su re, Be rry consisten tly be ha ved i n a bizarre m an ne r . B eginn ing w ith a slew of pro se m ot ion s filed in 20 04, Be r r y made st at ement s that we c ano nl y g en er ousl y c al l abs urd. ( Berr y was r epres ented b y three differ ent l aw yer s fro m 20 04 to 2006 , bu t the va st m aj or i ty ofm oti ons he fi l ed w er e pro se . ) H e s ai d he m et w i th Con do l ee zz a Ri ce a t th e W hi te Hous e; tha t Ci tiba nk robbe d him of $420 m ill io n ( p erha p s this is not as farfetche d as i t see m s gi ven the si tuati on i n the spri ng o f 2009 ! ) ; thathe was i n the proce ss of“[ n]e got i at[ i ng] to re du ce [ o] i l pri ces and cre ate m i l l i ons of j obs i n A m er i ca”; th a th e d r a ft e d a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r e a t y ; th a tt wo ba nk er s ( f o r m era ss o ci ate s) wer e k i l l ed afte r wor k i ng wi th h i m, a n d h i s o wnl i fe w a s i n d a ng e r d u e t o s o me sor t o fgl obalfi nanci alcon sp i ra cy; thathe was busi ness par tn er s wi ththe “c o nt r o l l er o f th e spa ce s ta ti o n” ; tha t he re p re se n te d th e g ov er n m en ts of C h in a, R u ss ia, an d T aiwan, a nd ha d m etwi thfi na nc e m iniste r s al l o ve r the wor d; a nd tha t Bi l l Cl i nt o n a nd B or i s Ye l ts i n h ad per so na l l y ma d e p r o mi s e s t o h i m. N o doubt tr oubl ed by these st ate m ents, the dist ri ct c ou rtord er ed B er ry to u n d er go an ex am in at ion in J uly20 04 to deter m i ne hi s com petency to sta nd tr i al

. A fter i nt er vi ewi ngBe r r y, sp ea k i ngwi thhi s at to r ne y a nd spouse, and re vi ew i ng hi s pro se fi l i ngs, Dr. Ron N i eber ding concl ud ed that Berr y unders tood the c harg esN o. 07

- 3243 5 ag ain sth im an d w as fit to p ro c ee d

. B e rry h im se lf agr eed

— “Ibel i eve Iam co m petent, ” he tol d the doctor

— an d so d id t h e j ud ge. B erry’s m en tal health history an d l ife story s u p p orted this d eterm ination. Berry att ended col l ege f orse ver alye ar s ( though he f ai l ed to gr ad u at e); se e m in gly h ad h ea lth y re lat ion sh ip s w ith h is wi fe an d c hi l dr en ; g en er al l y s te ered c le aro fdr ug s an d al cohol ; n ev erso ught pro fess i onalther apy; and w as neverpre scr ibed psycho tr opi c m edi cati on. A l though Berr y m ai ntai ned his gr andio se sto ryduri ng the co m p eten cy ex am , Dr. N ieberd ing d id n ot beli eve h e w as su fferi ng from a “d elusiona l (f alse beli ef) p rocess . ” B er ry didn’texhibi t a ny sy m ptom s “ consiste n t with a m ental dise ase o r defe ct. ” His onl y r ealpro bl em , r ather, was “a tendency t oward ove rco nfi dence”

— no t to o s ur pr i sing f o r a c o n( fi den ce ) man. As th e c a s e s l o wl y mo v e d t o wa r d s t r i a l, B e r r y c o nti nued hi s o nsl aught o fr i dicul ous s tatem ents. H e bur ned th ro u gh th re e a tt or n ey s in as m an y y e a r s, u n til fin ally he d ec i ded to go i t a l one. J ust a s the f ourth att or ney was se t to ma ke hi s i ni ti ala ppea r an ce , Be r r y i nf o r m ed th e cou rt ( o n Mar ch8 , 2 00 7) tha t he ’ d ha d e no ug h a nd w i she d t o p r o c e e d pro se . The j ud ge too k the r equest se r i o us l y, r es pec tingBe r r y ’ s ch o i ce b uten su ri ngtha t he knew the r i sks

. The co nver sat i on went l i ke thi s: T HE C O UR T : Mr
. B e r r y, y o u ’ v e i n d i c a t e d t o me th at yo u w i s h t o re p re se n t y ou rs elf in th is c as e, is that tr ue? DE FEN DA N T BE RRY : Yes , i t i s. T H E C O U R T : I’m req u ire d by law to ex p lain ce rt ain thi ngs to y o u. . . . And e v e n i fIwe r e n’ tr e qu i r e d b y6 N o. 07

- 3243 law , I ’d ex p lain th em an yw ay . . . . A n d ba sic ally th is am ounts to a warni ng tha t it ’s al m ostneve r a g oo d i dea t o r epr es en t o ne se l fi n a ny k i nd o fc as e an d parti cul ar l y in cr i m i nal cas es. I ’ve had occas ion now to read s e veral ofthe p ap ers you have fi l ed w i th m e, . . . and I have to tel l you that my i mpr e s s i o n i s tha t y o u ha v e v e r y l i t t l e u nd e r s t a nd

i ng o fthe law , v ery l i ttl e underst anding ofthe rul es of e vid en c e, ve ry little u n d er st an d in g of w h at w ou ld be r el ev an t i n the na tu r e o fa defen se . Ther e’ s no th i ng th a ti n d i c a t e s t o me th a ty o u h a v e a n y ab i l i t y t o e x a mi ne a w i tness o r to cro ss exam i ne a w i tness . I be l i eve that evi dence to wh i c h y ou m i ght ha ve a va l i d obj ecti on m i ght b e o ffered a n d I bel i eve yo u w oul d not know that you had the r i ght t o obj ect orhow to ob j ec t. In s h or t, I b elie ve th at rep re se n tin g y ou rs elf in th is c as e, p ar tic u l a r ly th is kin d of ca se w h ich d ea ls w ith fi na nc iali ssu es, is a very u nw ise a n d a very fool ish th ing for you to do . I w a nt you to u nd ersta nd thatthat i s m y opi ni on. Do you und er sta nd that ? DE FEN DA N T BE RRY : Yes, Ido. TH E C O U RT: I n additi on t o m y b el i efthatyo u w oul d b e unabl e t o defe nd [ ] yo urse l fadequatel y, I a l s o b e l i e v e th a t i f s o me th i n g we n t o n d u r i ng t he cou rs e o fthe t r i altha t was a n e r r o r, s o m ethi ng w here yo u have the r i ght to appeal, yo u know so l i ttl e about the l aw thatyo u w oul d be u n abl e t o preser ve the re cor d to perm i t y ou t o appeal ev en an error that w as u nm istakably w rong. Do you u nd erst an d whatI ’ ve j us t sa i d t o y o u?N o. 07

- 3243 7 DE FEN DA N T BE RRY : Yes, Ido. TH E C OU RT: The other thi ng i s . . . Ido notbel i eve

— and I ’ m part i cul ar l y c l earabo ut thi s ba sed on w ha t I ’ve heard from you before

— that i fyo u had a g oo d defens e t o these char ges and y ou wanted to p u t o n ev id en c e t o e st ab lish th at d efe n se , you w ou ld not know how to do i t, and as a c on sequence eve n i fyo u had a v alid d efense, yo u m ay be unabl e t o mak e i tt o the j ur y wh i c h wo ul d t r y thi s c a s e . Do y o u un der st an d tha t th ati s m y o pi ni o n? [ DE FEN DA N T BE RRY : ] Yes, Ido. TH E C OU RT: I n additi on t o that, Ithin k you have, o bv i o us l y, no e xpe r i en ce wi ths el ec ting j ur o r s . . . , a nd f orthi s r eas on y ou m ay n ot b e effecti vel y abl e t o m ake chal l enges f orcause to cer tai n j uror s o r m ake an i nform ed de cision as to exerc isi ng pe rem p tory c h a l l e n g e s . . . . D o y o u u n d e r s t a n d th a tth a ti s my vi ew o fyo ur abi l i ti es here ? [ DE FEN DA N T BE RRY : ] Yes, Ido. THE COURT: And no twi th st an di ngtha t, no twi th

st an di ngthe war nin gs thatI ’ ve g i ve n t o y o u a nd re peati ng to yo u an o l d l ega l m ax im , which i s a l aw yeri nvol ved

— and you’ re notev en a l aw yer

— a l aw yerthatdefends hi m sel fh as a foo l f ora cl i ent, des pi t e my wa r ning s t o y o u, do y o u s t i l l des i re to rep resen t yours elf ? DE FEN DA N T BE RRY : Yes, Ido. Sat i sfi ed that Berr y was m aki ng an inf or m ed choi ce, a lb e i ta f o o l i sh o ne , the j ud g e a l l o we d h i m t o p r o c e e d pro8 N o. 07

- 3243

se . H owever, the j ud ge urge d Be rry to consi der s tand-by c ou n se l, an d B er ry ac q u ies c ed . So, w ith an at to r n e y in to w bu t h im se lf atth e h elm , B er ry m ad e h is w ay to tria l. T he tr i al l ast ed fi ve days bef or e the j ury f ou n d h im gui l ty as charg ed. Though hi s str ate gy f ai l ed, Berr y a i m ed thro ughout the tr i alto co nvi nc e the j ury that he was i nde ed a m o ve r a nd s ha k eri n gl o ba l fi na nc e. And t o the ex te n t h is ow n vie w of th in gs co n flict e d w ith th e t es tim ony ofpro secuti on witn ess es

— ex p erts an d otherw i se

— h e c h alk ed itu p to th eir rela tiv e ign or an c e (in c om p ar iso n to h is ow n so p h ist ica tio n ) of th in gs fina n c ial. A s f aras pro se d efe nses go, i t wasn’tthe w or st w e’ ve se en. Be r r y mana g ed to l o dge o bj ec ti o ns , c r o ss - ex ami ne wi tn es se s, c al l a wi tn ess of h is o wn, a nd mak e o pen i ng and cl osing st ate m ents. H e di dn ’ t ca l l him sel fas a w i tne ss, but by choos i ng to r epres ent hi m sel fhe was e ffecti ve l y abl e to t est i fy thr o ug ho utthe t r i alwi th o utf ac i ng cro ss- exam i nati on. But to say that i t wasn’tan unm i ti gat ed disa ste r f ora pro se d efense i sn ’t saying m uc h. Berry’s d e c i s i o n to rid e s olo w as cle ar ly a p oo r on e. A t b es t, h is per f orm an ce s er ve d a s a di st r ac ti o n fr o m the g o ve r nm ent’ s ca se, doi ng l i ttl e ( i fanythi ng) to underm i ne i t. The que st i o n f o r us i s whethe r the v er di cttha t ca m e o ut o ft h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s mu s tb e v a c a t e d b e c a u s e t he c o u r ts h o u l d n o th a v e a l l o we d B e r r y t o r e pr e s e n th i msel f

. W e r evie w t hat deci si on f oran abuse o fdi scr etio n, kee p in g in m in d th e c on st itu tio n al p rin c ip les it im p lica te s. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 53 4 F
. 3d 690, 69 3- 94 ( 7th C ir. 2008); U nite d State s v. B rock, 15 9 F
. 3d 1077, 10 79 ( 7th C ir. 1998).N o. 07

- 3243 9

I n a ddit i on t o h i s m ai n a rg um en t

— thathe l acked com petency 1 t o re pre s en thim self

— Be r r y c o n t e n ds th a th e d i d n o tk n o w- (co n tin u ed ...) W e start w ith d ue proc ess, w hich proh ibi ts th e trialof a d efe n d an t w h o lac ks m en ta l co m p et en c y. D r ope v. M issou ri, 420 U .S. 16 2, 17 1-7 2 (1 97 5); D usky v. U nited Sta tes , 362 U
. S. 402, 402 (1960 ) ( pe rc ur i am ); U ni t e d Sta te s v. Andre ws , 469 F. 3d 1113 , 1117 ( 7th Cir
. 2006 )
. Com petency to sta nd tri alrequi re s the abi l i ty to und er sta nd the nature o f the pr oce edi ngs, to co nsul t with counsel, a nd to as si st counsel in p re pari ng a defe nse. D r ope, 42 0 U.S
. at17 1; D us ky, 3 62 U. S
. a t 40 2. Be r r y, ho wev er, do es no t g en uine l y di spute thathe pos ses sed the m entalwh er ew ithal to s ta nd t r i al

. I ns te ad, he s ay s th is is besi de th e po i nt because co m petency to sta nd trialdoes notequalco m peten cy to r e p resen t ones elf att r i al

. Co m pet en cyt o do the l att er, Berr y c onte nd s, r equi re s m or e. I s that s o? Berr y c oncedes that a cri m i nal defendant has a fu n d am en ta l righ t t o re p re se n t h im se lf. See U
. S. C on st. am en d . VI; Far et ta v . Ca li forni a , 422 U
. S. 806, 807 (1975 ); 28 U
. S. C. § 1 654. Yet, thi s r i ght, l i ke so m any other s, is not ab so lu te
. Edwards , 12 8 S
. Ct. at23 84 ( citing M ar t i nez v. C ourt of App eal of Ca l. , Fourth A p pell ate D is t. , 52 8 U.S
. 15 2, 16 3 (2 00 0), M cKas kl ev. Wiggi ns , 4 65 U
. S. 168, 178-79 (1984 ), a nd F a re tt a , 422 U .S. at 8 34 n .46 )). For ins ta n c e, a defe nd ant ca n f or fei t hi s r i ght t o sel f

- re prese ntati on by “del iber ate l y e ngag[ i ng] i n ser i ous a nd o bstr ucti oni st m i sco nd uct. ” Faret ta , 4 22 U. S
. at 83 4 n. 46
. And ade fen dan t ca n o n l y e l e c ts e l f

- r e p r e s e n t a t i o n b y “ k n o wi n g l y a nd in te llige n tly ” w aiv in g h is rig h t t o c ou n se l. Id. at83 5. 110 N o. 07

- 3243

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 ingly a n d i ntel li gentl y w aive hi s ri ght to counsel

. That i s, even i fhe was c om pet en tt o m ake s uc h a n elec t i on, he s ays the d i s t r i c tc o u r t f a i l e d t o e n s u r e th a th e k n e w a l l th e r i s k s . We d isag ree , so m u ch so tha t w e find it un ne cessary to d iscuss thi s poi ntatan y l en gth. Su ffi c e i tt o s ay thata re v ie w ofthe r e le v a n t fa ct o rs , Johnso n , 53 4 F .3d at 69 3-94 , an d the ju d g e ’s a d m o n iti o n c o n v in ce u s th a t B er ry “[k n ew ] w h a t h e [w a ]s do ing and his choic e [ w a] s m ade w ith eyes open,” U n i te d S tat es v. A very, 20 8 F .3d 59 7, 60 1 (7t h C ir . 20 0 0 ). N eedl ess to sa y, a defen d an t w ho l acks co m petency to st an d t r i alha s no b us i ne ss r epr es en tinghi m sel f. But w hat about a defen dant w ho has the m entalpre sence to sta nd tr i albut w ho s ti l l suffer s fro m a m en taldefect that coul d i m pai r hi s abi l i ty to re prese nt hi m sel f ? B er rysa ys th e l aw t ak es a cc o untof thi s si tu at i o n, a cc o m m o dat i ng su c h “gr ay- ar ea” defe nd ants

— am ong w hom he c ounts h im se lf

—by i m posi ng a hi gherst andard f orel ecting to pr o c e e d pro se . A ye ara g o we co ul d ha ve di spa tc he d thi s ar g um en t sum m ar i l y. U p to that poi nt, the contr ol l i ng autho ri ty w as Go d i n ez v . Mor an , 5 09 U. S
. 3 89 ( 19 93 )
. I n G o din ez , the Suprem e Cour t “ rej ect[ ed] the no ti on th at com petence to ple ad g u ilty o r to w ai ve the r i ght t o counselm ust be m eas ured bya sta nd ar d that i s hi gherthan ( orev en differ ent fro m ) the D us kys t a n d a r d ” g o v e r n i n gc o mp et en c e t o s ta n d tria l. Id. at39 8. The Courtsa i d i nd i vi du al sta tes co uld adopt m or e dem anding sta nd ar ds i fthey w anted to , but i t was a m att erof choi ce, notco nsti tuti onal d ict at e. Id. a t 40 2. As f ar a s th e Con st i tu ti o n was c o n-N o. 07

- 3243 11

cer ned, defendants co m petent to sta nd tr i alwere com pete n tt o r e p r e s e n tth e ms e l v e s ( a tl e a s twh e n p l e adi ng gu il ty). U nd er G o din ez , then, Berr y would s eem to l ose . But, a s Ber r y s ug g es ts , the S upr eme Co ur t’ s r ec en t dec i si o n i n Edwards r equi r es a de epe r a na l y si s. From o ne p er sp ec tiv e, Edwards si m pl y co nfi r m ed the Cour t’ s par ting r emar k s in G o din ez

— that sta tes m ay f or ce c ounselupon an unw i l l i ng defend ant who, despi te com petency to sta nd tr i al, suffer s fro m a m entali l l ness cast i ng doubt up on h is abil ity to ser v e a s h is ow n law yer. H ow ever, th e Cou r t i n Edwards di dn ’ t thi nk G o din ez se tt l ed the m atter. A hm ad Ed w ard s w as ha uled i n t o s t ate cou rt after a bot ched ar m ed robber y. H i s m entalco nd i ti on va ci l l ate d th ro u gh ou t t h e p r e t r i al s ta ge s: th e c ou rtfou n d h im co m pet en t to s ta nd t r i ala t o ne he ar i ng b ut i nc o m pet en t on t w o othe r occa si ons a s a r esul t o fschi zophre ni a. A fter eight m ont hs of treatm e n t i n a l ocal hosp ital, how ever, E d w ard s’s con d iti on had im p roved , an d th e cou rt deci ded he was fi t t o proce ed. The co urt s till had doubts abou t E d w ard s ’s m en tal state, th ou gh, and therefore de ni e d h i s r e qu e s tt o p r o c e e d pro se . On ap pea l, he ar g ue d tha t sinc e he was co m pet en t to s ta nd t r i al, I ndi an a ha d no r i g ht

— no co nsti tuti onalauth or i ty

— to p ro h ibit him from repres en ting him self. Th e S up rem e C ou rt disa gr eed, hol ding that “the Consti tuti on per m i ts St ate s to i nsi st up on r epres entat i on by co unsel f ortho se com pete nte no ug h t o s ta nd t r i alunde r D us kybu t w h o s till sufferfrom se ver e m entali l l ness to the point wh er e they a r e n o tc o mp e t e n tt o c o n d u c tt r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s b y th e m-12 N o. 07

- 3243 sel ves. ” Edwards , 128 S . C t. at 23 88
. G o din ez di dn ’ t di ctat e th at res u lt, in th e C ou rt ’s v iew , bec au se th at d ec isio n on ly d ea lt w ith a d efe n d an t w h o w ish ed “t o p ro c ee d on h is own to ente r a guil ty ple a[
. ] ” Id. a t 2385
. The G o din ez de fe nd a nt “ di d no t s e e k t o c o nd uc t t r i a l pr o c e e di ng s, ” a tas k that m ay re quir e a hi gherl eve l o fco m petency than si m plywaiving the r i ght t o counself or purposes o f ple adinggui l ty. The Co ur t’ s dec i si o n i n E dw a rds ma y h e l p B e r r y i n s o me abst ra ct way, but eve n then no t bym uch. Build i ng o n G o din ez , the Edwards Cou r tt o o ka no the r s t e p t o wa r ds l i mi t i ngthe r i g hto fs e l f

- r e pr e s e nt a ti on. The Co ur tma de i t cl e a r tha tthe r i g htt o p r o c e e d pro sei s a n y th i n gb ut ab so l ut e. Howev er, in b o th G o din ez a nd Edwards the Court tal ked about w hat the Consti tuti on p erm i ts

— l i m i tat i on o fthe sel f

- re prese ntati on r i ght i n connect i on w i th pl eadi ng g uilty and pres enti ng a tr i aldefense, re sp ec tiv ely

— not w hat i t m andates. A t s om e poi nt, pr es um ab l y, the r e m us t be l i m its to th e l i m i ta ti o ns . I fthe opti on t o re prese nt o nsel fi s t o be c al l ed a “ right, ” no t j us t a so m et i m es pr i vi l eg e, i t ha s to b e av ai l ab l e i n the u su al c ou rs e o f th in gs . In th is re sp ec t, w e f in d m er it in Ju st ice Sc alia ’s d iss en t. Se eEdwards , 1 28 S. Ct. at23 92 ( “U nti l to day, the ri ght o fse l f

- re prese nt at ion has bee n ac co r ded th e sa m e r es pec t as o th erc o ns ti tu ti o na l g ua r an tee s. ”)
. Bu t the upshot f orBerr y i s cl ear : The Consti tuti on m ayhave al l owed the tr i alj ud ge to bl oc k h is r equest to go it alo n e, bu t it c er ta in ly d id n ’t re q u ire it. See U nited Sta tes v. D eSh a z er, 55 4 F.3 d 1281, 12 90 ( 10th Cir
. 20 09) ( “Thus, wh i l e the d ist rict co urt w as not com pel l ed to fi nd M r . D eSh azer co m pet en t to wai ve hi s r i g htt o c o un-N o. 07

- 3243 13

se l s i m pl y b ec au se the co ur t ha d f o und h i m c o m pet en t to stan d t r ial, i t d oes not f oll ow thatthe d istri ct cou rt w as abs olutely proh ibi ted from doin g so. ”). W e em phasi ze the word “m ay” bec ause Edwards does see m to cap a tr i alco urt’ s abi l i ty to f ois t c ou nselupon the unw i l l i ng. “S evere m entali l l ness” appears to be a condi t i o n prece dent. Cert ai nl y, the ri ght t o sel f

- re prese ntati o n ca nno t be den i ed m er el y be ca us e a d ef en dan t l acks l ega l kno w l edge o r othe rwis e m ake s f ora poor ad vo c at e. SeeFare tt a , 4 22 U. S
. a t 83 4 n. 46 (“[A ] de fen dan t wh o e l e c t s t o r e p r e s e n th i ms e l fc a n n o tth e r e a ft e r c o mpla i n that th e qual i ty ofhi s o w n defe nse a m ounted to a den i alo f‘ effec ti ve a ss i st ance ofc o uns el

. ’ ”)
. And the Ed war ds Courtr epeate dlycab i ned i ts hol ding w i th phr a s e s l i k e “ men t a l de r a ng e men t, ” 1 2 8 S
. Ct
. a t2 386, “gr ay- ar ea defe nd ant, ” i d. at 23 85 , “ bo r der l i ne - co m pet en t c rim i nal defendant, ” i d. at 2384, and , of cou rse, “sev ere m entali l l ness, ” id . at 2 38 8. E d w ar d s h im se lf, aft er all, suffer ed fro m schi zoph re n ia and del usi ons, notj ust a pe r s o na l i t y di s o r de r . S o e v e n i fw e we r e t o r e a d Edwards to require counsel i n cer tai n case s

— a dubi o us r ea di ng

— th e r ul e woul d o nl y appl y when th e defen dan t is suffe r i ng f ro m a “se ver e m entali l l ness. ” N othi ng i n the opi ni on sugge sts thata cour t ca n deny a re quest forse l f

- re prese ntat i on in t h e a b se n c e o f th is. B ec au se th er e w as n o e vidence befor e the tr i al courtsho w i ng tha t Ber ryhad such an afflic tio n, Edwards was si m plyo ffthe tabl e. One fi na l wor d o n Edwards

. The car eful re ader w i l l as k w h et h er it ev en m at te rs in fed er al c ou rt
. Edwards

— G o din ez too

— dea l t wi th st at e co ur t pr o ce eding s. And the S u p r e me14 N o. 07

- 3243 Court ar ti cul ate d i ts hol ding as a m att ero fwh at sta te c ourt s m ay do, wh i l e r em ai ni ng si l ent a s t o the powers of federa l co urts. SeeEdward s , 1 28 S
. Ct
. a t 23 88 ( “[ T] he Consti tuti on per m i ts Sta tes to i nsist u pon re prese ntati on b y c ou n se l for th os e c om p et en t e n ou gh to st an d tria l

. . . butwho s ti l l s ufferfr o m se vere m en ta l i l l ne ss t o the poi nt wh er e they a re notco m petent to co nd uct t ri al pr o ce eding s bythe m se l ve s. ”) (em pha si s adde d)

. Gi ving the c ase a l i ter alr eadi ng, o ne would co n c lu d e that Edwards si m plyl eft the l aw undisturbed for p urpose s o f federa l cr i m i nal tr i al s. But w e d on’ t thi nk tha t’ s r i ght. Fi rst, ther e i s the m att ero fdoctr i nal co nsi ste ncy. Because bo ths ta te a nd fede r alc o ur ts a r e bo und to upho l d the ri ght t o a f ai r tr i al(n ix ing t ri alo fthe m ental l y incom pete n t), D r ope, 42 0 U.S
. at17 1- 72; D usky, 36 2 U.S
. at40 2; An dre ws , 46 9 F
. 3d at 1117, and the ri ght t o sel f

- re prese ntatio n, Faret ta , 422 U .S. at 8 35 ; s e ealso 2 8 U .S .C . § 16 54 , i t f ol l ows that Edwards ap pli es to the f edera l courts equal l y. Se cond, ther e i s the f act that eve rycou rtto co nsi der E dw ar ds i n th e c o n t e x t o f a fe d e r a l c r i mi n a l t r i a l h a s th us far ta ke n it for gr an te d th at its h old in g c o n tr ols

. See D eSh a z er, 554 F.3d at12 89 -90 ; U nited Sta tes v. G a rey, 54 0 F .3 d 1 2 53 , 126 7 n .9 (11 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nite d State s v. B ack, 2008 W L 50464 42, * 2- 3 ( 6th Ci r. N ov. 25 , 20 08) ( unp ublish ed ); U nited Sta tes v. A r enbu rg, 2008 W L 32864 44, * 4-5 ( W
. D.N.Y. A ug. 7, 20 08) ( unp ubl i shed ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i l l ey , 2 00 8 W L 30912 63, * 1- 2 ( N
. D. I nd

. A ug. 5, 20 08) (u n p u b lish ed ); U ni t ed Stat e s v. D unc an , 20 08 W L 29549 76, * 2- 3 ( D. I daho J uly29 , 20 08) ( unp ubl i shed). To do so do es n o t r o b th e C o u r t ’ s r e fe r e n c e t o s t a t e s o f a l l mean i ng. There m ay b e a d istincti on i n ter m s o fthe sourc eof aN o. 07

- 3243 15 fede ral cou rt’s pow er to block a gray-area defen d an t’s self

re p re se n ta tio n req u es t. A feder alco urt probab ly enj oy s t h is l ati tude as a p roduct ofi ts disc re ti onar y a uthor i ty to hand l e pr oce edi ngs ( hence the r evi ew f oran ab u se of disc re ti on) , wh er eas a sta te cour t’ s a uthor i ty m ay be d r i ven by pri nc i ple s o ffedera l i sm . I n any eve nt, we don’t need to m ap out th is r ath er th e o r e t ica l d isti nc tion to d eterm i ne that Ed w a r ds go ver ns but that Berr y c an’ t t ake advantage o fi t. I n the tr i alj ud ge’ s v i ew

— w hich w e sha re

— B er rywas j ust a co n m an wh o coul dn ’ t qui t, a sw i nd l erwh o “n eve r dr o pped [ ] hi s m ask.” H e tr i ed to hus tl e th e j ur y wi ththe sam e s tor y h e t ol d to hi s v i cti m s. But that doesn’ t m ean he actu all y beli eved the sto r y , a nd i t certainly d oesn ’t m ean he su ffered from a “s evere m en tal i ll ne ss.” I f a hustl erco uld frust ra te th e t ri alpro cess si m plyby ke ep in g u p p re te n se s, th e p ro se c u tio n of fra u d w ou ld com e cr ashi ng down al l ar ound us . N o, wh at Berr y had w as ju st a c as e o f ex tr em e o ve rc on fid en c e. H e t old D r. N ieb er d in g th at h is h igh IQ

— he p ut itat17 1

— al l owed h im t o “ r u n circ les aro u n d m os t o f th e p eo p le in th is c ou n tr y.” Sm all w on d er , th en , th a t h e t h ou gh t h e c ou ld f oo l the j ury. A judge does notvi ol ate the Consti tuti on w h en h e a llow s a d efe n d an t like th is t o t ak e h is ch an ce s wi ths el f

- r epr es en ta ti o n. The j ud gm ent o fco nvi cti on i s A FFI RMED .

5- 13- 09