N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOHN ARTHUR

WA LTHALL, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50464

D.C . No. 8:14-c r-00192-C JC -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C orm a c J. C arne y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 7, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , R

AW L INSON, and HUR

W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt John W a ltha ll (W a ltha ll) a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt of c onvic tion following a jury ve rdic t. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w d e nov o whe the r a

de fe nda nt wa s de nie d his Sixth Am e ndm e nt right to c ounse l. Se e Unite d State s v . Orte ga , 203 F.3d 675, 679 (9th 

# FIL ED JUL 24 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.C ir. 2000). A distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion for substitution of c ounse l is
re vie we d for an a b u se of disc re tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Ve lazque

z , 855 F.3d 1021, 1033-34 (9th C ir. 2017). “ [W ] e have not y e t c la rifie d whe t

he r de nia l of a Fare tta 1 re que st is re vie we d de novo or for a buse of disc re tion.” Unite d State s v . K ac zy nsk i , 239 F.3d 1108, 1116 (9th C ir. 2001). A distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings
a bout a de fe n da nt ’ s c om pe te nc e to sta

nd tria l a re re vie we d for c le ar e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Turne r , 897 F.3d 1084, 1105 (9th C ir. 2018). 1. C rim ina l de fe nda

nts ha ve a right to repre se nt the m s e lve s a s long a s the y knowingly

and volunta

rily wa ive the ir right to c ounse l. Se e Fare tta, 4 22 U.S. a t 819-20; se e also Unite d State s v . Brugnara , 856 F.3d 1198, 1212 (9th C ir.), c e rt. de nie d , 138 U.S. 409 (2017). The distric t c ourt he ld a

c om bine d c om

p e te nc y and Fare tta he aring to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r W a ltha ll ha d the c a

pa c ity to sta nd tria l a nd to re pre se nt him se lf. At the he aring, two psy c hologists from the B ure a u of Prisons te stifie d , opining tha t W a ltha ll did not suffer from a m a jor m e nta l illne ss tha

t would deprive him

of the
a bility to unde rsta

nd the nature of the proc e e dings a g a inst him . Afte r re vie wing the e vide n c e , the distric t c ourt de nie d W a ltha ll the opportunity to re pre se nt him se lf, ruling tha

t W a ltha ll wa s c om

pe te nt to sta

n d tria l, but not c a

pa ble of

1 Fare tta v . C

alifornia , 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

.

2re pre se nting him se lf be c a use he “ wa s not willing or c a pa ble to pe rform

the
e sse ntia l ta s ks ne e de d to pre se nt his de fe nse , ” and la c k e d the le ga l knowle dge and skills to de fe nd him s e lf. The distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination wa s la rge ly ba se d on W a ltha ll’ s a

ntic s during c ourt a

ppe aranc e s, a

nd the c ourt ne ve r e nga ge d in the Fare tta c olloquy

with W a ltha ll. Se e Unite d State s v . He rnande

z , 203 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring distric t c ourts to m a ke de fe nda

nts a w are of the

“ thre e [ Fare tta ] e l e m e nts of se lf-re pre se ntation” be fore de ny ing the ir re que st) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds as rec ognize d in Unite d State s v . Fe rguson , 560 F.3d 1060, 1068 n.4 (9th C ir. 2009). Fa ilure to fulfill this obliga

tion “ viola

te s the de fe nda

nt’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt right of se lfre pre se ntation” and re quire s re ve rsa l
. Id . at 625. As a n initia l m atte r, W a ltha ll’ s “ t e c hnic a l le ga l knowle dge is not re le va nt to
an a s se ssm e nt of his knowing exe rc ise of the right to de fe nd him se lf.” Tamplin v
. Muniz , 894 F.3d 1076, 1085 (9th C ir. 2018) (c i tation a n d a lte rations omi tte d). In fa c t , e ve n if W a ltha ll wa s “ a by sm a lly ignora nt whe n it c o m e s to te c hnic a l le ga l knowle dge ,” he still posse sse d the right (subje c t to limita tion) to se l fre pre se ntation. Unite d State s v . Mac k, 362 F.3d 597, 601 (9th C ir. 2004) (c ita tions
and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). Ne ve rthe le ss, te rm ination of W a ltha ll’ s se lf-re pre se ntation would ha ve be e n wa

rrante d if W a ltha ll wa s disruptiveor
3e nga ge d in obstruc tionist behavior afte r he wa s a fforde d the opportunity to
re pre se nt him se lf. Se e Brugnara , 856 F.3d a t 1212 (noting tha

t a c ourt m ay te rm inate se lf-re pre s e ntation by an “ unduly

disruptive ” de fe nda

nt). Howe v e r, onc e the d istric t c o urt de t e rm i ne d tha t W a ltha ll wa s c om

pe te nt to sta

nd tria l , the distric t
c ourt e rre d by

not m aking furthe r inquiry to support findings c onc e rning W a ltha ll’ s a

bility to re pre s e nt him se l f. Se e He rnande z , 203 F.3d a

t 623-24. Under any sta nda rd of re vie w, re ve rsa l is re quire d due to the distric t c o urt’ s fa i lure to
c om ple t e the re quire d Fare tta proc e dure s. Se e id
. 2 . Although the distric t c ourt la c ke d the be ne fit of our re c e nt de c i sion in Unite d State s v . Re ad , 918 F.3d 712 (9th C ir. 2019), tha t c a se m e re ly

re ite rate d our pre c e de nt inte rpre ting Fare tta a s re c ogniz ing the de fe nda nt’ s “ right to bethe

‘ m a ste r’ of his or he r own de fe n se .” Id . at 720 (quoting F a re t ta , 422 U.S. a

t 820). The distric t c ourt’ s e rrone ous de nia l of W a ltha ll’ s right to re pre se nt him se lf wa s

“ struc tura l e rror and the re fore re quire s re ve rsa l” an d a ne w tria l. Unite d State

s v . Farias , 618 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th C ir. 2010). 3. The pre -tria l c o m

m unic ation re stric tion im

pose d by the m a gistra

te judge , whic h lim ite d W a ltha ll’ s a bility to solic it priva

t e re pre se ntation, wa s unduly broa d
a s writte n . Howe ve r, a s the re stric tion wa s not stric tly e nforc e d, a

nd W a ltha ll ha d
m ultipleopportunitie s to e nga g e with individua ls be y ond thoseliste d in theorde r,
4W a ltha ll’ s c onstitutiona l rights we re not infringe d. C f
. Musladin v . Lamarque , 555 F.3d 830, 838 (9th C ir. 2009) (e xpla ining tha t a Sixth Am e ndm e nt viola tion oc c urs whe n the re is a

“ c om ple te de nia l of c ounse l” ). 4. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by de ny ing W a ltha l l’ s re que s ts to bea

ppointe d ne wc ounse l
. Se e Ve lazque z , 855 F.3d a

t 1034. Any bre a kdown in c om

m unic ation be twe e n W a ltha ll a nd his a ttorne y wa s pre c ipita

te d by W a l tha ll’ s intra c ta

bility rathe r tha

n by a true c onflic t . Se e Danie ls v . W oodford , 428 F.3d 1181, 1198 (9th C ir. 2005) (e xp la ining tha t a de fe nda nt’ s right to c ounse l is not de nie d whe n the de fe n d ant unre a sona bly re fuse s to c oope rate with his
attorne y ). AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART . 2

2 B e c a use we re ve rse for fa ilure to c om ply with Fare tta , we ne e d not, a nd do not, a ddre s s W a ltha ll’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa iling to re
e va luate his c om

pe t e nc y be t

we e n the first a

n d se c ond tria ls. 5