# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 42 41

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Haro ld R. Sta nl ey

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 16 , 20 18 Fi le d: Ju ne 5, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BENTO N, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Haro ld R. St an le y was co nv ic te d of ev as io n of pa y m en t of ta xe s an d co rru pt ly

en de av or in g to im

pe de en fo rcem en t of In te rn al Rev en ue l a w s , i n vi ol at io n of 26

U.S.C. §§ 72 01

, 72 12 (a). He ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed hi s rig ht 1

The Hon or ab le Ro se an n A. Ketc hm ark

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1
W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.to co un se l by al lo win g hi m to p r o c e e d pr o se , an d erre d in in st ru ct in g th e jury.

Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.

On Aug us t 25

, 20 15

, St an le y was in di ct ed

. He ap pe ared in co ur t on Sep te m be r
22

. The m ag is tra te jud ge en co ur ag ed hi m to ob ta in co un se l, an d if he were un ab le

, 2

th e c o u r t w o u ld ap po in t a Cri m in al Ju st ic e Act (CJ A) at to rn ey

. Two week s la te r,
St an le y m ov ed fo r en try of ap pe aran ce by a “ pr iv at e at to rn ey ge ne ral ,” Carl W es to n. Thre e d ay s l at er, t he m ag is tra te jud ge de ni ed th e m ot io n b ecau se W es to n was no t a
li cen se d at to rn ey

. On Octo be r 13

, St an le y ap pe ared be fo re th e m ag is tra te jud ge

. The

m ag is tra te jud ge di sc us se d hi s le ga l rep res en ta ti on , in cl ud in g th e pi tfa ll s o f se lfrep res en ta ti on . Stan le y

waiv ed hi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el

.

Afte r se ve ral tri al co nt in ua nc es by St an le y , th e tri al was se t fo r May 31

, 20 16

. On May 17

, a Tue sd ay , th e m ag is tra te jud ge he ld an ot he r co nf eren ce ab ou t St an le y ’s

pr o se r e p r e s e nt at io n. W ed ne sd ay , St an le y m ov ed fo r en try of ap pe aran ce by a di ffer en t “ pr iv at e at to rn ey ge ne ral ,” Ro dn ey Dale Cl as s. St an le y al so fil ed an en try
fo r W es to n to ap pe ar as pr iv a t e at to rn ey ge ne ral an d “ ne xt fri en d.” At a pr et ria l

co nf eren ce on Thu rs da y , th e di st ric t co ur t ad dr es se d th es e m ot io ns

. The co ur t de ni ed

bo th en tri es of ap pe aran ce be cau se ne it he r in di vi du al was a li cen se d at to rn ey

. The

co ur t ag ai n rev ie wed op ti on s fo r rep res en ta ti on , en co urag in g St an le y to se ek co un se l.

On May 24

, th e m ag is tra te jud ge a p po in te d st an db y co un se l to ai d St an le y wit h

pr oc ed ur al qu es ti on s at tri al

.

The ne xt da y

—o ne week aft er th e pr et ria l co nf eren ce, an d si x da y s be fo re tri al

be ga n— St an le y reject ed th e ap po in te d st an db y co un se l. He m ov ed fo r a co nt in ua nc e

to ret ai n co un se l. St an le y cl ai m ed he “ de te rm in ed im m ed ia te ly aft er th e pr e-t ria l th at
it was no lo ng er in hi s be st in te res ts fo r a fai r tri al to rep res en t hi m se lf.” Rel y in g on

The Hon or a b l e Sara h W

. Hay s, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 2
W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-pr ev io us di sc us si on s wit h St an le y ab ou t co un se l, th e di st ric t c o ur t de ni ed th e

co nt in ua nc e. The m or ni ng of tri al

, th e co ur t fu rth er ex pl ai ne d it s de ci si on

. The co ur t

pr ov id ed St an le y wit h an ex pe rie nc ed de fen se at to rn ey as st an db y co un se l. Thi s ti m e,
St an le y acce pt ed

. The co ur t pe rm it te d W es to n to act as an as si st an t if he di d no t

se rv e as a wit ne ss an d he lp ed on ly wit h ad m in is tra ti ve ta sk s. A f t e r t r ia l, th e jury

fo un d h im

gu il ty. He ap pe al s.

I.

“ Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to al lo w a de fen da nt to

pr oc eed pr o se .” Unit

ed St at es v. Turn er , 64 4 F.3 d 71 3, 72 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The

Si xt h Am en dm en t gu aran te es th e accu se d th e rig ht to se lf- rep res en ta ti on

. Fa re tt a v.
Ca li fo rn ia

, 42 2 U.S. 80 6, 81 8- 21 (1 97 5)

. Eve n w he n su ch rep res en ta ti on is to th e

accu se d’s de t r i men t
, t h e ch oi ce is hi s an d m us t be ho no red

. Id

. at 83 4. Howev er,

“ th e accu se d m

us t ‘kno win gl y an d in te ll ig en tl y ’ fo rg o” th e be ne fit s of as si st an ce of

co un se l. Id

. at 8 35

, qu ot in g Jo hns on v. Zerb st , 30 4 U.S. 4 58 , 4 64 -6 5 (1 93 8)

. The

de fen da nt “ sh ou ld be m ad e aware of th e da ng ers an d di sa dv an ta ge s of se lfrep res en ta ti on .” Id

. “ W arn in gs of th e pi tfa ll s of pr oc eed in g to tri al wit ho ut co un se l

. . . m us t be ‘rigo ro us [ly] ’ c o nv ey ed .” Io wa v. Tov ar , 54 1 U.S. 77

, 89 (2 00 4) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ), qu ot in g Pat te rs on v. Il

li no is , 48 7 U.S. 2 85 , 29 8 (1 98 8)

.

Co un se l m ay b e waiv ed if th e de fen da nt “ kn ows wha t he is do in g an d hi s ch oi ce is m ad e wit h ey es op en .” Fa re tt a , 42 2 U.S. at 83 5, qu ot in g Ad am s v. Unit

ed

St at es ex re l. McC

an n , 31 7 U.S. 26 9, 27 9 (1 94 2)

. The “ co ur t m us t be sa ti sf

ie d th at
th e waiv er of co un se l is kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary. ” Turn er , 64 4 F.3 d at 72 1, ci ti ng God in ez v. Mo ra n , 50 9 U.S. 38 9, 40 0 (1 99 3)

. “ The ad eq ua cy of th e waiv er de pe nd s

on th e pa rti cu la r fact s a n d ci rcu m st an ces of each cas e, in cl ud in g th e ba ck gr ou nd

,

ex pe rie nc e, an d co nd uc t of th e ac c u s e d

. I d.

, ci ti ng Ed

wa rd s v. Ar iz on a , 45 1 U.S.

47 7, 48 2 (1 98 1) an d Jo hns on , 30 4 U.S. at 46 4

. “ Thi s co ur t up ho ld s th e gr an t of a de fen da nt ’s m ot io n to rep res en t hi m se lf if th e reco rd sh ows ei th er th at th e co ur t

-3

-ad eq ua te ly warn ed hi m or th at
, un de r al l th e ci rcu m st an ces , he kn ew an d un de rs to od

th e da ng ers an d di sa dv an ta ge s of se lf- rep res en ta ti on .” Unit ed St at es v. Tsch ac her

, 68 7 F .3d 92 3, 9 32 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

Here, th e m ag is tra te jud ge an d th e di st ric t co ur t rep eat ed ly ad vi se d St an le y of

t h e da ng ers of pr oc eed in g pr o se

. He ack no wled ge d “ th ere was a fa i r l y l o n g di sc us si on ” ab ou t hi s de ci si on to pr oc eed pr o se, and he “ was warn ed of th e pi tfa ll s of pr oc eed in g wit ho ut le ga l co un se l.” St an le y was of fere d a CJ A at to rn ey

. The co ur t
al so o f f e r e d st an db y co un se l to ad vi se hi m in hi s pr o se rep res en ta ti on

. St an le y reject ed th es e o f

f e r s

. The da y of tri al

, th e co ur t ag ai n of fere d St an le y st an db y

c o u n s e l

, an d pe rm it te d a ne xt fri en d to act as an ad m in is tra ti ve as si st an t. St an l e y ch os e to pr oc eed wit h bo th

, bu t as ke d st an db y co un se l to si t at th e st aff at to rn ey ta bl e,

no t co un se l t ab le

.

St an le y cl ai m s he was co nf us ed ab ou t th e ab il it y of a ne xt fri en d to as si st

. He

arg ue s th at hi s de ci si on to pr oc eed pr o se was ba se d on th e be li ef th at W es to n co ul d

p ro vi de le ga l co un se l. He co nt en ds th at whe n th e co ur t de ni ed hi s re q u e s t f o r
W es to n’s as si st an ce, he “ cl earl y rev ok ed hi s de si re to pr oc eed pr o s e b y se ek in g to
ob ta in co un se l.” To th e co nt rary, Stan le y wait ed un ti l th e week of tri al to req ue st a

co nt in ua nc e to ob ta in co u n s e l

. Thi s req ue st cam e aft er St an le y was to ld m ul ti pl e ti m es ov er ei gh t m on th s th at W es to n or an y no n- li cen se d at to rn ey co ul d no t pr ov id e le ga l ad vi ce at tri al

. As th e di st ric t co ur t sa id th e m or ni ng of tri al : “ y ou were ad vi se d

y ou co ul dn ’t

. . . ha ve Carl W es to n rep res en t y ou b e c a u s e h e was no t a pr act ic in g

at to rn ey

. . . an d you were en co ur ag ed to ret ai n c ou ns el .”

St an le y arg ue s th at li ke th e d efen da nt in Uni te d St at es v. LeBea u , he “ cl earl y

rev ok ed hi s de si re to pr oc eed pr o se by se ek in g to ob ta in co un se l.” Unit ed St at es v.
LeBea u , 86 7 F .3d 96 0, 9 74 (8t h Ci r. 20 17 ). The re, th e de fen da nt ha d co un se l. He
in te rru pt ed th e se co nd pr et r ia l co nf eren ce to de cl are he co ul d rep res en t hi m se lf. Ig no rin g hi m , th e co ur t pr oc eed ed wit h th e co nf eren ce. Eve n so , th is co ur t fo un d th at

-4

-“ vi ewed in co nt ex t,” hi s st at em en t “ was no t a cl ear req ue st to rep res en t hi m se lf.” Id

. at 97 5. Here, St an le y rep eat ed ly affi rm ed hi s de si re to rep res en t hi m se lf. Res po nd in g

to hi s m ot io n for a co nt in ua nc e to se ek co un se l, the di st ric t cou rt no te d “ be cau se of

th e rep eat ed ad vi ce o f y ou r rig ht to tri al co un se l an d y ou r rep eat ed en co ur ag em en t

to hi re tri al co un se l, th e 11 th ho ur req ue st to ret ai n co un se l was de ni ed .” In co nt ex t,
St an le y’s m ot io n fo r co nt in ua nc e was no t a cl ear req ue st to rev ok e hi s de si re to

pr oc eed pro se.

The co ur t warn e d S t a n l e y of th e da ng ers of pr oc eed in g pr o se

. The co ur t
of fere d so lu ti o n s t o a d d res s bo th hi s an d th e co ur t’s co nc ern s. St an le y ch os e to

rep res en t hi m se lf. “ The di st ric t co ur t ad eq ua te ly warn ed [St an le y ] of th e da ng ers of

se lf- rep res en ta ti on , an d di d no t err in fin di ng th at he un de rs to od th em an d kn owi ng ly

waiv ed hi s rig ht to co un se l.” Tsch ac her

, 68 7 F.3 d at 93 2, qu ot in g Turn er , 64 4 F.3 d

at 72 2.

II.

A ch al le ng e to a jury in st ru ct io n is rev ie wed fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Unit ed

St at es v. Whi te Ca lf

, 63 4 F.3 d 45 3, 45 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Howev er, if a pa rty fai ls to
ob ject at tri al , t hi s co ur t rev ie ws on ly f o r p l a i n erro r. Unit

ed St at es v. Al co rn , 6 38

F.3 d 81 9, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Und er pl ai n erro r, “ [t]he re m us t b e an ‘ erro r’ tha t i s ‘pla in ’ an d th at ‘affect [s ] su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.’” Unit ed St at es v. Ola no , 50 7 U.S. 72 5,

73 2 (1 99 3) (s eco nd al te rat io n in or ig in al ). Thi s co ur t ha s th e di sc ret io n to de ci de

whe th er “ to co rrec t th e fo rfei te d erro r,” and do es so on ly whe n “ th e erro r ‘seri ou sl y affe ct [s ] th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .’ ” Id

. (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ), qu ot in g Unit ed Sta te s v. Y

ou ng , 47 0 U.S. 1 , 15 (19 85 ).

“ The di st ric t co ur t ha s wid e di sc ret io n in fo r mu la ti ng ap pr op ria te jury

in st ru ct io ns .” Unit

ed St at e s v
. C r u z -Zuni ga , 57 1 F.3 d 72 1, 72 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io n o m it te d) . “ It i s t he rare cas e in whi ch an im pr op er

-5

-in st ru ct io n wil l jus ti fy rev ers al of a cri m in al co nv ic ti on whe n no ob jecti on ha s be en

m ad e in th e tri al co ur t.” Hen de rs on v. Ki bb e , 43 1 U.S. 14 5, 15 4 (1 97 7)

. Thi s co ur t
wil l no t fin d erro r whe n th e jury in st ru ct io n “ fai rly an d ad eq ua te ly su bm it te d th e is su e[] to th e jury.” Unit ed St at es v. Fa r is h

, 53 5 F.3 d 81 5, 82 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The ke y is “ whe th er th e ai li ng in st ru ct io n by it se lf so in fect ed th e

en ti re tri al th at th e res ul ti ng co nv ic ti on vi ol at es du e pr oc es s.” Cu p p v. Nau gh te n , 41 4 U.S. 14 1, 14 7 (1 97 3)

. “ The bu rd en of de m on st rat in g th at an erro ne ou s in st ru ct io n was so pr ejud ic ia l th at it wil l su pp or t a co ll at eral at ta ck on th e

co ns ti tu ti on al va li di ty of . . . j ud gm en t i s ev en gr eat er th an th e sh owi ng req ui red to

es ta bl is h pl ai n erro r.” Ki bb e , 43 1 U.S. at 15 4. The bu rd en is “ e sp eci al ly he av y ”

whe n “ no erro ne ou s i ns tru ct io n was gi ve n.” Se e id

. at 1 55

.

St an le y att ack s J ur y

Ins tru ct io n n um

be r 11 :

[T]he de fen da nt ha s rep res en te d hi m se lf in t h i s t ria l. He ha s a

c o n s t i tu ti on al rig ht to do th at

. Thi s de ci si on m us t no t affe ct y ou r

co ns id erat io n an d y ou r de ci si on whe th er or no t he is gu il ty or no t gu il ty. You ha ve he a r d hi m sp eak at va rio us ti m es du rin g th e tri al

. I wan t to remi n d yo u t h a t whe n Mr. St an le y sp ok e as a la wy er in th e cas e, hi s

wor ds are n o t e v id en ce. The on ly ev id en ce in th is cas e co m es fro m wit ne ss es who te st ify un de r oa th on th e wit ne ss st an d an d fro m ex hi bi ts th at are ad m it te d. The de fen da nt ’s te st im on y is ev id en ce in co nt ras t to hi s ac ti on s as a la wy er.

He arg ue s it is no t clea r whi ch of h is st at em en ts th e jury co ul d con si de r. He cl ai m s th at th e in st ru ct io n fai le d to ad dr es s ho w t he jury s ho ul d c o n s id er st at em en ts m ad e by hi m w h i l e cro ss -ex am in in g ot he r wit ne ss es , whi ch “ ov erl ap pe d” hi s te st im on y

. To th e co nt rary, th e in st ru ct io n— ne arl y w o r d

- fo r-wo rd Eig ht h Ci rcu it Pat te rn Ju ry
In st ru ct io n No. 2.2 3— co rrec tl y sa y s th at th e jury m ay co ns id er on ly hi s te st im on y as

ev id en ce. The in st ru ct io n fa irl y an d a de qu at el y

ex pl ai ne d t he is su e to th e jury.

-6

-The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err, le t al on e pl ai nl y err, in pr ov id in g th is in st ru ct io n

to th e jury.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-