2005 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

9-27-2005 

# P azde n v . M aure r
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4236

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_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 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 Re posit 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

" P a z de n v . M aur e r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 460. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/460P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 03- 4236
M I CH AE L P AZ DE N,
A ppel l ant

v. SU SA N M A U R E R , A ct i ng C om m i s s i oner , N ew J er s ey

D e p a rtm e n t o f

C o rre c tio n s; T . M O O R E , M R ., S u p e rin ten d e n t, E a st J e rse yS tate P riso n ; W . M C C A R G O , M R ., A c tin g C h a irm a n , N e w Je rse yS tate

P a ro le B o a rd ; PE T E R H A R V E Y , A t t or neyG ener al of t he St at e of N ew J er s ey

O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt forD i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , Pur s uantt o a C er t i fi cat e of

A p p e a l a b i l i t y G ran ted B yT h is C o u rt ( C i vi l A ct i on N o. 00- cv- 4435) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. J ohn W

. B i s s el l , C hi ef J udgeJ udge R i char d L

. N y gaar d , S en ior C i r cui tJ udge ef fec t i ve 1 J ul y9, 2005. 2

A r gued: M ar ch 8, 2005
B e f o re : N Y G A A R D , M c K E E a n d R E N D E L L , C irc u it 1 J udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember 27, 2005)

K evi n M cN ul t y , E s q. ( A r gued) L aw ren ce S

. L u stbe rg G i bbons , D el D eo, D ol an, G r i ffi nger& V ecc hi one O ne R i ver fr ontPl aza N ew ar k, N J 07102 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant J ames F. A vi gl i ano St even E. B r aun, E s q. ( A r gued) Pas s ai c C ount yPr os ecut or ’ s O ffi ce A dm i ni s t r at i on B ui l di ng 401 G r and St r eet Pat er s on, N J 07505 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

OP I NI ONSi nce the D i s t r i ctC our tacc urately an d fu l l ys etfor t h t he 2 fac tual backgr ound of t hi s habea s act i on, w e t ake the l i ber t yof exce rpt i ng m uch of thi s por t i on of ouropi ni on fr om t he opi ni on o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt

. See Pazde n v. M aur er , N o . 0 0 -4 4 3 5 , slip o p . at 3-1 1 (D

. N

. J. S ep t. 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 ). 3 M c K e e , C i r cui tJudge
M i chae l Pazden a ppeal s fr om t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or der d e n y i n g h i s p e t i t i o n f

o rwr i to f

h a b e a s c o rp u s u n d e r2 8 U. S

. C. § 2254( a)

. Pazden w as convi ct ed i n s t at e courton a 119 count i ndi ct m enti nvo lvi ng “w hi t e- col l arfr aud” s t emm i ng fr om t he sa le o f c o n d o m in iu m s in C lifto n , N e w Je rse y . W e a re a sk e d to det er m i ne i f t he tr i al cour tvi ol at ed Pazde n’ s Si xt h A m endment ri gh tt o co un sel w hen t he cou rt den i ed d efen se coun sel ’s request f o r a co n tin u a n c e a n d P a z d e n p ro c e e d e d to trial pro se . For t he r e a so n s th a t f

o llo w , w e h o ld th a t th e trial c o u rt d id v io late P azden ’s S i xth A m end m ent righ t s and thatt he st at e cou rt s’ det er m i nat i on t o t he contr aryw as bo t h contr aryt o, and an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t ab li shed l aw as procl ai m ed b yt he S up rem e C ou rt

. A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l rever se t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deni al of fe der al habea s r el i ef a nd r emand w ith in s tr u c tio n s to g ra n t a c o n d itio n a l w ri t.

I. Backg r ound. 2
Fr o m 1 9 87 t o 1990, Pazden w or ked forR i ver vi ew V i l l age I nc. , a corpor at i on w hol l yow ned byR ober tPazden, ap p ell an t’ s b roth er. R i ver vi ew w as i ncorpo rat ed t o devel op, ma r k e t , a n d s e l l a c o n d o mi n i u m c o mpl e x i n Cl i f t o n, N ewIn a se c o n d , rela ted in d ictm e n t, P a z d e n w a s c h a rg e d w ith 3 t wo c o u n t s o f

f o u r t h d e g r e e u t t e r i n g a f o r g e d i n s t ru me n t

. He pleaded n ot gui l t yt o all cou nts of b oth i nd i ct m ents

. 4 J er s ey . B et w ee n M ar ch 1989 and A pr i l 1990, R i ver vi ew cont r act ed w ith pur chas er s fort he s al e of s ever al i ndi vi dual uni t s . A ft er ent er i ng i nt o t hos e contr act s , how ever , R i ver vi ew d ev elop ed fin an cial d ifficu lt ies an d u lt im atelyfa il ed

. H o w ev er, R i ver v i e w r e f

u s e d t o r e tu r n t h e d e p o s i t s o f n u me r o us pur chas er s . I tcl ai m ed thatt hos e pur chas er s had def ault ed on their ob li g ati o n s u n d er the ag ree m en ts, an d they w ere there fo re n o te n t i t l e d t o a r e f

u n d

. Th e c o rp o r a t i o n d i d , h o wev e r , r e fund d e p o s its to a p p ro x im a te ly 2 0 0 o th e r p u rc h a s e rs . O n F eb rua ry2 6 , 1 9 9 1 , o n e o f the p rosp ec ti v e p u rch ase rs f iled a p riv a te c rim in a l co m p lain t ag a in st P a z d e n c h a rg in g h im w i t h t heft by dece pt i on. Pazden w as arr ai gned on t hatcompl ai nt o n M a rc h 2 7 , 1 9 9 1

. A l m os tt hr ee y ear s l at er, o n D ece m ber7, 1993, Pazden wa s n a me d i n a 1 3 1

- c o u n t i n d i c t me n t t h a t a r o s e f r o m t h e s a me fac t s as t he 1991 compl ai nt

. H o w ever , i tadded the addi t i onal 42 pur chas er s w hos e deposi t s had not been r efunde d. Pazden 3 as ked fo rappoi nt ed couns el , and the courtas s i gned J ohn Schadel l , an A s s i s t antD eputyPubl i c D efe nder , to r epr es ent h i m. O n O ct ober3, 1995, W an da B ar t os r epl ace d J ohn Schadel l as Pazden’ s cour t

- appoi nt ed att or neyi n t he cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on under l y i ng t he i ns t anthabea s act i on. Pr i ort o t r i al5 i n t he Su p erior C our tof N ew J er s ey , L aw D i vi s i on, Pas s i ac C ount y , how ever , M s . B ar t os i nform ed t he courtt hat , gi ven her re c e n t in v o lv e m e n t in th e c a se a n d th e sta te’ s a lleg e d re f u sa l to pr ovi de di s covery , s he w as unpr epar ed t o pr ocee d t o t r i al

. T r i al w as schedu l ed to b e g in F ebruary20 , 19 96

. S pecifi cal l y , M s. B ar t os expl ai ned:

O n e o f th e c laim s [ P a z d e n ] m a k e s is t hatw e had f

ai l ed t o i nt er vi ew and cont ac t the var i ous w i t nes s es t hat w i l l be neede d fort hi s t r i al and that i s t ru e a n d wa s th e b a s i s o f my a p pli cat i on for a t hree m on th adj our n m en ti ni t i al l yw hen I s ai d I w as notr eadyt o and abl e t o pr ocee d w i t h t he ca s e. W h en I firstg o t th e c a s e fro m M r. S chad egg , I as ked for t he w i t ness list. T h e re w a s n o w itn e ss list in th a t f ile

. . . . [T he listof p otent i al w i t nesses, w hen obt ai ned fro m P az den, c o n ta in e d ] 5 6 0 n a m e s a n d it w o u ld have be en vi r tual l yi m pos s i bl e for m e to c o n tac t, t o in ter v iew , to eval uat e i n a s s e s s i n g th o s e w i t nes s es ap p ea ri n g in tha t very , v e rysh o rt per i od of t i m e.O vera four t een mont h per i od, t he pr os ecut i on pr ovi ded the 4 defe ns e w i t h al m os t5, 000 pages of di s covery , i ncl udi ng 1, 787 pages i n D ece m ber , 1994, 2, 502 pag es in t he fa l l of 1995, an addi t i on a l 4 5 9 p a g e s i n t h e f a l l o f 1 9 9 5 a n d a p a c k e t of di s coveryt hatw as del i ver ed t o t he defens e on J anuary26, 1996.

6 A pp. 116- 117.
I n addi t i on, i n a l et t ers he s ent to t he court , M s . B ar t os also co n tend ed that sh e h ad b ee n h am p ere d b ythe p rose cu ti o n ’s r efus al t o fur n ish t i m el ydi s coveryas w el l as t he pi ece m eal fas hi on t hatdi s covery w as bei ng pr ovi ded. She w as 4 par t i cul ar l yconce r ned a b o uta di s coverypacke tt hatt he pr os ecut i on del i ver ed on J anuary 26, 1996, appr oxi m at el yt hr ee w eeks befor e tr i al w as t o begi n. T hatpacke tcont ai ned a do c u me n t t h a t p e r t a i n e d t o t h e p r o c e s s i n g a n d a p p r o v a l of t he corpo r at i on’ s Publ i c O ffe r i ng St at ement byt he D epart m entof C om m unit y A ff

ai r s . I tal er t ed M s . B ar t os t o t he exi s t ence of s t i l l m or e document s t hathad notbeen y etbeen turned overby th e p r o s e c u tio n . M s. B a rto s e x p lain e d to th e c o u rt th a t, “[h] avi ng been a l er t ed byt hi s di s coverypr ovi ded byt he P rosecut or’ s O ffi ce of t he im po rt a n c e of these doc um ents , defe ns e couns el w o ul d notbe ac t i ng i n t he bes ti nt er es tof t he c lien t n o r p ro v id in g a b le a n d e f f e c tiv e c o u n se l in p ro c e e d in g to t r i al att hi s t i m e. ” A pp. 252.
B as ed on al l of t hes e fa ct ors, M s. B ar t os r eques t ed a t hr ee- m ont h pos tponement of t he tr i al dat e. A ta J anuary19, 1996 hear i ng , M s. B ar t os ’ s co- couns el i n t he ca s e, M r . Sm i t h,7 e x p lain e d to th e c o u rt:

Judge, m yfi r s tes t i m at e of the n u mbe ro f

wi t n e s s e s t h a twi l l be cal l ed byt he def

ense m ayr ange any w here t o 5 0 to 150 , and t hat i s a fi r s tl ook att he ca s e. T h er e ar e at l e a s t5 0 wi t n e s s e s t h a tI t h i n k we w o u ld b e re m iss if

w e d id n o t ca ll.
T hos e w i t nes s es have t o – t her e may even be s om e ou t s t a n d i ng document s t hatt hose w i t nes s es have

. Onc e t h o s e d o c u me n t s h a ve been r evi ew ed w e nee d t o i nt er vi ew th o s e w itn e s s e s , a n d b a s e d o n . . . th e in f o rm a tio n t h e yp ro v id e . . . t h e r e ma yb e o t h e rwi t n e s s e s t h a twe w o u ld nee d to m ee t w ith an d ac q u ir e d o c u me n t s f

r o m.

. . . T h er e ar e a numberof out s t andi ng r eques t s fordi s cover y . T her e may h a v e b e e n C o u rt O rd e rs b yth is C our tfort he St at e t o tur n over di s covery . T her e ar e thous ands of do cum ents t o be revi ew ed an d I j ust d o n ’ ts e e h o w, e v e n wi t h t wo a tto rn e y s w o r k in g o n th is c a se it8 coul d be r eadybyt he 13 , and th c e rta in lyI’v e g o n e to m yD e p u ty and r eques t ed s om e addi ti onal a tto rn e y s to se e if w e c a n m o v e th is c a s e f o r w a r d , a n d g e ti tr e a d y. A pp. 262- 64. N evert hel es s , t he court ref us ed t o pos tpone the trial. Si nce the court w o u ld notdel ayt he tr i al , and bel i evi ng t h a th e w a s th e n m o r e f a m i l i a rw i t h t h e c a s e t h a n h i s a t t o r n e y, gi ven t h e w i t nes s es and mat er i al s hi s at t or neyhad nothad an oppor tuni t yt o expl or e, Pazden i nfor m ed the court tha t he bel i eved he had no al t ernat ive b utt o r epr es enthi m s el f. T he fo ll o w ing ex ch an g e o cc u rred as th e c o u rt ex p lai n ed the d an g ers of pr ocee di ng pro se : T he C our t : A nd t his i s w h at y o u ’re su re y ou

w antt o do?
M r . Pazden: Y our H onor , I ag ree w i t h w haty ou

sa id b e f o re . I k n o w th e f

a c ts o f th is case bett er t han anybo dyel se. I al so agr ee thatI w i l l be at a di s advant age as far as m yknow l edge of l aw and t he l egal pr ocedur es , I fee l I have no choi c e i n t h i s ma t t e r . Th e r e h as been, up unt i l t he l as t few w eeks no i nves t i gat i on done i n t hi s cas e.

. . .9 [A ] s I sated befor e I bel i eve I ’ m s el ect i ng t he l e s s e rof

t w o e vi l s . I f M i s s Bar t os, gi ven t he l evel of pr epar at i on s he’ s been a l l o w e d a n d g i v e n t h e l a t e d i s c o v e r y, fr ankl y , I t hi nk, I t hi nk t he t r i al i f i ts t ar t ed t o d a ywi t h M i s s Ba r t o s r e p r e s e n t i n g me w oul d be a f

ar ce a nd m ockeryof j us t i ce.

. . . M ycont ent ion i s s he w as pr event ed fr om g iv in g m e e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e b ylate di s covery , veryl at e d is coverybyt he fa ct s he w as n’ t appoi nt ed unt i l t hr ee y ear s aft er th e a rra ig n m e n t; an d b yth e f a c t th a t th is C o u rt h a sn ’t g iv e n h e r th e o p p o rtu n ityto r evi ew t he di s covery , to do a pr oper i nves t i gat i on. I agree I’ m sel ect i ng t he l esser of tw o ev i l s. I know t he fac t s and M i s s B ar t os , i f gi ven an ad j ou rnm ent and g i ven t he o pp ortun i ty w o u ld k n o w th e f

a c ts a s w e ll as I do a n d if s he knew t he fa ct s as w el l as I do t hen I th in k w e ’re p re p a re d to g o to trial.

. . . I f M i s s B ar t os i s m ycouns el , t he fi nal deci s i on i s her s and I be l i eve thats om e of10 the deci si on s, and I do n’t w ant t o go in to o u ra t t o r n e y - c l i e n tr e l a t i o n s h i p , b u twe di s a g r e e o n s o me o f t h o s e d e c i s i o n s a nd I th in k th a t d isa g re e m e n t w o u ld e v a p o ra te if s h e w a s g i v e n a c h a n c e to s tu d yth e f a c ts

. T he C our t : M r . Pazden, l et m e s ay agai n t o y ou

t hati ti s m yverydi s t i nctopini on t hati t i s unw i s e for y ou t o r epr es ent y our s el f and thaty ou w oul d be bet t ers er ved i f M i s s B ar t os served as t he att or neyand y ou w ere a v a ila b le to s u p p le m e n t h e r . . . Y ou’ r e notfami l y[s i c] w i t h t he R ul es of E vi dence and y ou’ r e not fa m i l i arw i t h t he C our t Pr ocedur e; y ou’ r e ce r t ai nl ys om eone w h o ’s a rt ic u la te a n d in te llig e n t, th at do esn ’t m ean t hat y ou w i l l do even a n adequa t e j ob i n r e p r e s e n t i n g y o u r s e l f , but t he c o n se q u e n c e s w ill f

a ll o n y o u if

y o u a re ill s e r ve d i n thi s c a pa c i t yun de rt he l a w as I rea d it , I ca n ’tsav e y o u fro m y o u rself. I t’ s y ourchoi ce. I w oul d s t r ongl yur ge y ou nott o r epre s ent y our s e l f – i n s p i t e o f

t h a t , i s i ts t i l l y our deci s i on t o r epr es enty our s el f and be y our o w n law y er?
M r. P az d en : Y es, i t i s, y o u r H o n o r.11 T he C our t : A nd t his d ec isi o n is m ad e by y ou

e n tirelyv o lu n tar ilyo n y o u r p a rt?
M r . Pazden: Y es , i t i s – w el l , agai n I ’ m s el ect i ng

t he les serof tw o ev i l s. T h e C o u rt: A ll righ t. A pp. 104- 05, 108- 09, 110- 11.
I n addi t i on, i n r es pons e t o Pazden’ s cl ai m t hatM s . B ar t os had notbeen af

forde d an ade quat e oppor tuni t yt o pr epar e for t r i al , t he courtr es ponded:

I have pe r s onal l yw i t nes s ed th a t M iss B a rto s h a s p u t in count l es s hour s dur i ng t he w eek a nd on w eeke nds

. She has a bac kgr ound i n fi nanci al m at t er s , and I fr ankl yt hi nk y o u w o u ld b e h a rd p re ss e d to fi nd anotherat t or neyw ho w o u ld d e v o te th e m s e lv e s to t hi s cas e t he w ay s he has and pourovert hi s d i s coveryt he w ayshe has. I p e r s o n a llya m w itn e ss to t hatbeca us e s he i s as si gned t o t hi s C our t , as i de fr om y our c a se , this is w h e re sh e is12 as s i gned.
A pp. 108.
T h e trial c o u rt u lti m a telyp e rm itt e d P a z d e n to p ro c e e d to trial pro se w i t h M s . B ar t os act ing as s t and- bycouns el

. T he cour ts t at ed: “I ’ m s at i s fi ed t hat [Pazde n’ s deci s i on t o r epr es ent him sel f ] i s som et hing t hat i s hi s volunt arycho i ce. T hat i t ’s a deci s i on t hathe fe el s i n hi s bes ti nt er es tund er all o f t he ci r cumst ance s and t hathe i s m aki ng i nt el l i gent l y . ” Pazde n r e p r e s e n ted h im se lf

a t th e e n su in g trial, a n d w a s s u b se q u e n tly c o n v i c t e d o n a l l 1 1 9 c o u n t s t h a t we r e s u b mi t t e d t o t h e j u r y . He w as t her eaf

t er s ent ence d t o an aggr egat e pri s on t er m of s i xt een y ears . Pazden a ppeal ed t o t he N ew J er s eyA ppel l at e D i vi s i on. E x c e p t f o r a re m a n d to re s o lv e a se n ten c in g iss u e u n re late d to t he i ns t anthabea s pet i t i on, t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on aff i r m ed the c o n v i c t i o n , a n d t h e Ne w J e r s e yS u p r e me Co u r td e n i e d r e v i e w. Pazden f

i l ed thi s p eti t i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our ton S e ptem ber 11 , 20 00

. T he court t hereaft er dis m i ssed i t as a m i xed pet i t i on beca us e i tco nt ai ned both exhaus t ed and un exh aust ed clai m s. P az den v. Maur er , N o. 00- 4435, s l i p. op. at28 (D

. N

. J. S ept. 6, 20 0 1 ); see C rew s v. H orn , 360 F. 3d 146 (3d C i r. 29 94 ) (di scussi ng D i stri ctC ou rt ’s dis cret i on t o d i sm i ss habea s pet i t i ons cont ai ni ng bot h exhaus t ed and une xhaus t ed cl ai m s )

. T he cour t gr ant ed l eave t o fi l e an amended pet i t i on t hat d id n ot i ncl ude t he unexhaus t ed cl ai m s , and Pazden fi l ed a s ec o nd pet i t i on cont ai ni ng onl yt he exha us t ed cl ai m s on D ece m ber14, 2001. I n the am ended pe t i t i on, PazdenT he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s opi ni on enumer at es t he cl ai m s Pazden 5 ra is e d in h is a m e n d e d h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n . P az den v. Maur er , N o . 0 0 -44 3 5 , sli p o p . at 1 1 -12 (D

. N

. J. S ep t. 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 ). Si nce Paz den fi l ed hi s pet it ion af ter t he ef fec t i ve dat e of 6 A E D PA , t h e a me n d me n t s t o Ti t l e 2 8 c o n t a i n e d i n t h a t act g o v e rn o u r r e v ie w o f

P a z d e n ’s c la im

. See Li ndh v. Mur phy , 521 U

. S

. 3 2 0 (19 9 7 ). 13 cha ll enged the l egal i t yof hi s 1996 N ew J er s eys t at e cr i m i nal co n v ict io n o n sev era l gro u n d s, inclu d ing the tw o that are p rese n tl yb ef

o re u s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied P az d en ’s

5 p e t i t i o n a n d d e c l i n e d t o i s s u e a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y . We t her eaf t er gr ant ed a cert i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t yal l ow i ng Pazden t o appeal deni al of hi s Si xt h A m endment cl ai m t hathe w as d e n i e d t h e r i g h tt o c o u n s e l , a s we l l a s h i s s p e e d yt r i a l c l a i m. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.

I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U

. S. C

. §§ 1291 and 2253. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. §§ 2 2 4 1 a n d 2 2 5 4 ( a )

. S i n c e t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r td i s m i s s e d P a z d e n 's pet i t i on w i t hout conduct i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng, ourr evi ew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ' s d ec ision is plen ary

. See M ars hal lv. Hendr i cks , 3 0 7 F .3 d 3 6 , 5 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 

### W e ap p l y th e s ame st andard of

re view as the Dis tric t Court , pursuant t o the Ant i t e rr or i s m

and Effe c t i ve De ath P en a l ty Ac t of 1996 (“A E D P A ”), P u b

. L

. N o . 1 0 4 -13 2 , 1 1 0 S tat

. 1 2 1 4 (19 9 6 ). 614 

### U n d er th e relev an t A E D P Aam en dm en ts to § 2 2 5 4 : ( d) An appl i c at i on for

awr i t of ha be a s c or pu s onbe ha l f o f a pe r s on i n c us t ody p u rs uant t o the judgm e nt of aSt at e c ourt

s ha l lnot be gr ant e d wi th r e s pe c t t o any c l a i m th at

wa s a djudi c at e d on the m eri t s i n St at e c ourt

pr oc e e di ngs unl e s s the a djudi c at i on o f the cl ai m -- (1) r es ulte d i n a dec is ion that was contrary t o, or

invo lved an unreaso n ab le ap p li c at i o no f , c l e ar ly es ta b li sh ed F ed er al la w, as dete rmined by

the Sup re m e Court o f th e U n itedS tates; 28 U. S. C. § 225 4 (d )( 1)

. I n W i ll i ams v . Tay lor , 529 U. S. 362 (2 0 0 0 ), th e S up rem e C o urt n o tedth at “§ 2 2 5 4 (d )( 1 ) p laces a ne w c ons tr a i nt

on the powe r of a fe de r a l habe a s c ourt t o gr ant a state p riso n er’s ap p licat io nf o r a w rit o f

h ab eas co rp u s w ith re spec t t o cla im s a dj ud ic at ed onthe m erit s i n state co urt. ” Id

. at 412. The Court

e xpl a i ne d: Un der § 22 54 (d)( 1), the writ m ay i s s ue onl y

i f one of the fol l owi ng tw o c o n d i t i o n s i s s at i s f i e d

- - the state-co urt ad

j u d icatio nresu ltedin a d ecisio n th at (1 ) "w as co n trary to15 

### . . . c l e ar l y e s t abl i s he d F e de r a ll aw, a s d e t e rmi n e db y

th e S up r e me C o urt o f th e U n i t e dS t at e s , " o r

( 2) "in v o lv ed an u n r e a s o n a b le ap p licatio no f

. . . clearly es ta bl i s he d Fe de ra l l aw, a s dete rmined by

the Sup re m e C o urt of th e U n i t e dS t at e s . " U n d e r the "c on tr ar y to" c la use, a federa l h ab ea s co urt m ay

g ran t th e w rit if th e state co urt arriv es at a conclusi onop po si te to that re ac hed by this Co urt o n a qu es ti onof law o r if th e state c o urt d ecid es a case di ffe r e nt l y

than thi s Court ha s on a set o f m aterially

in d istin g u ish ab le f acts. U n d er th e "unreaso n ab le applic at ion" cl ause , a federal h ab eas co urt m ay

g ran t th e w rit if the s tate court i dentifie s the corr ec t g o v ern in g leg al p rin cip le f ro m th is C o urt's d ecisio n s b ut unreaso n ab ly appl i e s that pr i nc ipl e t o the fa c t s of the pri soner' s c as e. Id . at 4 1 2 -1 3

. I n Matte o v . Supe r i nte n de nt , SCI Albi on , 171 F. 3d 877 (3d C ir . 199 9) ( e n banc ), w e ex p lained that a federa l habea s c ourt m ake s two i nqui r i e s onha be a s r e vi e w und e r

AE DP A:16 

### F irst, th e f

ed eral h ab eas co urt m

u st dete rmine whether

the s tate co urt d e c i s i o nw a s " c o n tr ary

t o " S u p re me Co urt p r e c e d e n t

th at g o v e rn s the pe t i t i one r ' s c l a i m . R elief is approp ri at e only

if the pet itioner show s that" Supr e m e Co urt p r e c e d e n t r e qu i r e s ano ut c o me c ontr ary t o that r e a c he d by

the r e l e vant s t at e c ourt

. " Inthe abs e nc e of s uc h as howi ng, the f ed eral h ab eas c o u rt m u st ask whe th e r th e s t at e c o urt

d e c i s i on rep rese nt s a n "u n reaso n ab le applic at ion of" Suprem e C ourt p reced en t: th at is, w h eth er th e state co u rt d ec is io n, eval uate d o bje c t i ve l y

and on the m e r i t s, r e s ul t e d i n an out c om e that c annot re as on ably

be ju st ifie d. If so , then the pe t i t i on s houl d be gr ant e d. 17 1 F .3d at 891 (c it at ions om itte d). Un der the Ma tteo fram ework, in anal y zi ng the " contrary to " p ro v i s i o n , w e are requ ired“f irst to id en tif

y th e ap p licab le Supr e m e Court

pr e c e de nt

and de t e rm i ne whe the r

i t r e s ol ve s the peti ti on er ' s c la im .” Ma tteo , 1 7 1 F .3 dat 8 8 8 . F o r a state pr i s one r t o obt a i n habe a s r e l i e f unde r the “ c ontr ary t o” pr ovi s i on:H o w e v e r, “it is n o t n e c e ss a ryf o r th e p e ti ti o n e r to c ite 7 fac tual l y i dent i cal Supr eme Court pr ece dent

. R ather , t he cr i t i cal q u e stio n is w h e th e r a S u p r e m e C o u rt ru le- -b yv irtu e o f its f a c tu a l sim ilarity(th o u g h n o t n e c e ss a rilyid e n ti c a lity ) o r its di s t i l l at i on of gener al fede r al l aw pr ece pt s i nt o a c h annel ed m ode of a nal y s i s s peci fi cal l yi nt ended for appl i cat i on t o var i ant f a c tu a l s itu a tio n s-- c a n f

a irly b e sa id to re q u ire a p a rticu lar re su lt i n a part icularcas e. ” M at t eo , 171 F. 3d at888 ( ci t at i on and interna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). 17



### [I ]t i s not s uffi c i e nt

for the p etitio n er to sh o wm erely th at h is inte rpre tationof

Suprem e Court pr e c e de nt i s m or e pl aus ibl e than the s t at e c ourt's; rath e r , the peti ti on er m ust dem on strate that S up rem e C o urt p reced en t re qu ires th e co n tra r y out c om e . T h is st andard preclud es granti ng habeas relief so lely

o nth e b asis o f

sim p le d is a g reem en t w itha reaso n ab le s t at e c ourt

i nt e r pr e t atio n of the ap p licab le p reced en t. Id

. (e m ph as is in original ). 7 

### If the federa l habea s c ourt dete rmines that

the s tate court d e c i s i o nw a s n o t

c o n tr ary t o the applic able bo dy of

Suprem e Court18 

### law – ei ther

beca use the st at e c ourt de c i s i on c om pl i e s wi t h t he Sup r e m e C o urt

r u l e g o v e rn i n g the cl ai m , or bec ause n o such rule has been es ta blis hed – then the federa l habe a s c ourt

shoul d unde rt ake the se c on d s t e p o f ana l y

z i ngwh e the r the deci si on was base d o nan unr e a s ona bl e a ppl i c a t i o n of S up rem e C o urt p reced en t. Ma tteo , 171 F.3d at 8 8 9 (i nter nal quo tati onm ar

ks om itte d). Our “ un re as on ableap p li cati onof ” i nquiry do es no t, ho wever, auth o rize h ab eas relief

sim p ly b ecau se w e m ig h t d isag ree w ith the s t at e c ourt ’ s ana l y s i s , or be c aus e we woul d have r e a c he d a d if f eren t resu lt inth e f

irst in stan ce. Id

. The i nqui ry i s a l s o not inte nd ed to m er ely

re m edy “i ncorrec t a

pp li cati onof

federal law.” W i ll i am s , 5 29 U.S. at 41 0. Rather , the approp ri at e i nquiry is wh ether the st ate c ourt ’s applic at ion o f S up re m e Court prec edent was “obj ec ti vely un re as on able .” Ma tteo , 171 F.3dat 889- 90. “ The fe de r a lhabe a s c ourt s houl d not

gr ant the pe t i t i on unl e s s the s t at e c ourt de c i s i on, e va luat e d obje c t i ve l y and on the m e r i t s , r e s u l t e di nano ut c o m e th at c ann o t r e a s o n ab l y

be ju st ifie d un der e xisting S up re m e Court prec edent. ” I

d. at 890.
III . D i s c us s i on. P a z d e n a rg u e s th a t th e sta te tria l co u rt v io late d h is S ix th A m end m ent ri gh t t o coun sel by forci ng h im to cho se betw een pr ocee di ng t o t r i al w i t houtt he r eques t ed cont i nuance orpr ocee di ng pro se , an d th a t h is S ix thW e af firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f re li ef o n P az d en ’s 8 s peedyt r i al cl ai m s ubs t ant i al l yfor the reas ons s etfort h i n t he D istric t C o u rt’s o p in io n . A c c o rd in g ly , w e n e e d n o t d isc u ss h is sp ee d ytr ial claim fu rt h er. It ap p ea rs fro m the reco rd be fo re us th at t h e state tri al co u rt 9 fa il ed to ev en co n side r Johns on and i t s pr ogenyi n det er m i ni ng w h e th e r P a z d e n c o u ld c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro c e e d to trial pro se . R ather , t he tr i al court r el i ed mai nl yon St at e v. G al l agher , 644 A. 2 d 1 0 3 ( N. J

. S u p e r . 1 9 9 4 )

. As we di s c u s s mo r e f u l l yb e l o w, i n G al l agher , the A p p e llate D iv isio n b a se d m o st o f its a n a ly sis on Fa re tta , and onl ym ent i oned Johns on o n c e in p a s s in g . See G al l agher , 6 4 4 A .2 d a t 1 0 7 -1 1 2

. 19 A m endmen tr i g h tt o a s p e e d yt r i a l was d e n i e d b yt he d e lay be tw e e n h is in iti a l ar ra ig n m e n t in 1 9 9 1 , h is i ndi ct m ent in 1993, and hi s t r i al i n 1996. Pazden co n t e n d s t h a t t h e s t a t e c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s c l a i m s w as c o n t r a r yt o , a n d a 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 , S u p r e me C our tpr ece dent

. W e agr ee thatPazden’ s r i ghtt o couns el undert he Si xt h and F our t eenth A m endment s w as vi ol at ed undert he ci r cumst ance s her e. W e t hi nk i tcl ear 8 t hat , on t hi s r ecor d, t he s t at e tr i al cour t ’ s det ermi nat i on th a t P a z d e n ’s w a iv e r o f c o u n se l w a s v o lu n tar yw a s b o th

“ c o n tr a ry to ” a n d “ a n u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f

. . . c lea rlye sta b lish e d ” S u p re m e C o u rt p ro n o u n c e m e n ts in Johns on and Fa re tta

. P a z d e n ’s w a iv e r w a s n o t a 9 p ro d u c t o f

a f re e a n d m e a n in g f

u l c h o ice . T h u s, h is deci s i on t o w ai ve counse l and pr ocee d pro se cannotbe d e e m e d v o lu n ta ry.20 A . T h e A p p l i cab l e L ega l P ri n ci p l es. T he Si xt h A m endment pr ovi des t hat“[i ] n al l cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons , t he accus ed s hal l enj oyt he r i ght

. . . t o have A ssist an ce o f C o u n sel fo r h is de fe n se.” U

. S

. C o n st. A m en d

. V I. M or eover , t he Supr eme C our t has pr ocl ai m ed that“the gui di ng h a n d o f c o u n se l” m u st b e m a d e a v a ila b le in c rim in a l trials to t hos e thatcan notaff

or d t o hi r e a n at t or neyon t hei row n. U nit ed S t ates v. A sh , 4 1 3 U .S . 3 0 0 , 3 0 8 (1 9 7 3 ); G ideo n v. W ai nw r ight , 3 7 2 U .S . 3 3 5 (1 9 6 3 ). “C o m p lian c e w ith th is c o n stitu tio n a l m a n d a te is a n e ss e n tial j u risd ictio n a l p re re q u isite t o a fe der al cour t ’ s author i t yt o depr i ve an a ccus ed of hi s l i fe or l i ber t y . ” Joh nson v. Zerbst , 3 0 4 U

. S

. 4 5 8 , 4 6 7 (19 3 8 ).
T he S i xt h A m endment i s uni que, how ever , beca us e i tnot on l ygu arant ees a subst anti ve ri gh t- the ri gh tt o co un sel - i tal so g u a ra n tee s th e c o n v e rse rig h t to p ro c e e d w ith o u t co u n se l at tria l.

“ [ T ]h e C o n s titu tio n d o e s n o t f o rc e a la w y e r u p o n a d e f e n d a n t." Far et ta v. C al i

f or ni a, 422 U

. S. 806, 814- 15 ( 1975) , ( quot i ng A dam s v. U

ni t ed Stat es ex r el

. McC ann, 317 U

. S. 269, 279 ( 1943) )

. T he S i xt h A m endment t hus embodi es t w o compet i ng r i ght s beca us e exe r ci s i ng the ri ghtt o s el f- r epr es ent at i on n e c e s s a ri ly m e a n s w a iv in g th e ri g h t to c o u n s e l. B uhl v. C ooks ey, 2 3 3 F .3 d 7 8 3 , 7 8 9 (3 d C ir.2 0 0 0 ). C o n c o m itan tly , p ro c e e d in g to trial r e p r e se n ted b yc o u n se l as g u a ra n tee d u n d e r th e S ix th A m en d m en t m ea n s tha t a d ef en d an t h as no t arti cu lat ed a d esire t o w ai ve t hat r i ght and exe r ci s e hi s / herr i ghtt o pr ocee d pr o s e. “A w ai ver i s or di nar i l y an i nt ent i onal r el i nqui s hm entor abandonm entof a know n r i ghtorpr i vi l ege” and mustbe the p ro d u c t o f

a f re e a n d m e a n in g f

u l c h o ic e . Johns on , 304 U

. S. at21 46 4. “[C ]ourt s i nd ulge everyreas on able pre su m pti on against w a iv e r o f

f u n d a m e n ta l c o n s t i t u t io n a l r ig h ts .” Id . In o rd e r to pr ot ect the r i ghtt o couns el , t he C ons t i tut i on r equi r es t hatany w ai verof t hat r i ght be the pr oductof t he vol unt aryexer ci s e of f re e w ill. Fa re tta , 422 U

. S. at835.

I ti s axi om at i c thata cr i m i nal defe ndant ' s w ai vero f a cons t i tut i o n al r i ghtm us tbe vol unt ar y , k n o w i ng and i nt el l i gent

. T her efor e, t he cons t i tut i onal ri ghtof s el fr epr es ent at i on i n a cr i m i nal cas e i s condi t i oned upon a vol unt ary , k n ow i ng and i nt el l i gent w ai ver of t he r i ght to b e re p re se n ted b yc o u n se l.
B u h l, 2 3 3 F. 3 d a t 7 8 9

. “ I f i n a h a b e a s c o rp u s h e a r i ng, [a pet i t i oner ]

. . . convi nces t he court b y a pr eponder ance of e v id e n c e th a t h e n e ith e r h a d c o u n se l n o r p ro p e rlyw a iv e d h is cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o couns el , i ti s t he dut yof t he courtt o gr ant t he w r i t

. ” Johns on , 3 0 4 U .S . a t 4 6 9

. H ow ever , w h ere appr opr i at e, “[a ] cr i m i nal defe ndant m ay be a s ke d, i n the i nt e r e s tof or de r l ypr oc e du r e s , t o c ho os e betw een w ai verand an ot hercour s e of a ct i on. ” M aynar d v. Meachum , 5 4 5 F .2 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 8 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 7 6 ). I n d e e d , a d e f e n d a n t ca n n o t alw a y s o b tain h a b e a s re lief b ya lleg in g th a t a w aive r w as notvol unt arybeca us e the tr i al cour tdeni ed a r eques t ed cont i nuance and for ced the def endantt o deci de22 betw een pr ocee di ng pro se and pr ocee di ng w i t h unw ant ed c o u n s e l. N e v e rt h e le s s , [ a ] c l e a rc h o i c e b e t we e n t wo al t er nat i ve cour s es of ac t i on does n o t alw a y s p e rm it a p e tit io n e r to m ake a vol unt ary deci s i on. I f a cho i ce pr esent ed t o a peti t i on er is cons t i tut i onal l yoffe ns i ve, t hen the c h o i c e c a n n o t b e v o lu n ta ry. A d e f e n d a n t m a yn o t b e f o rc e d to p ro c e e d w ith in c o m pete n t co u n se l; a c h o ice b e tw e e n p ro c e e d in g w ith i ncompet ent couns el orno couns el i s i n es s ence no choi ce a tal l

. T he per m i s s i bi l i t y o f

t h e c h o i ce p r e s e n te d to th e p e titio n e r . . . d ep ends on w hethert he al t ernat i ve t o s el f- r epr es en t at i on offe r ed o p e ra ted to d e p riv e h im o f a f a ir tr ia l.
W i lks v. I s r ael , 627 F. 2d 32, 35 ( 7t h C i r . 1980) ( i nt ernal c ita tio n s o m itte d ).
T her efor e, a r evi ew i ng cour tm us tbe “c onfi dentt he defe ndant i s not for ced t o m ake a choi ce be t w een i ncompet ent couns el orappea r i ng pr o s e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Tayl or , 113 F. 3dI n r e f e r r i n g t o d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l h e r e a s “ i n c o mp e t e n t ” we 10 i n n o w ay i nt end t o s ugges tanyt hi ng aboutherabi l i t yor pr ofes s i onal i s m . R ather , w e ar e onl y r efe r r i ng t o t he fac t t hatt he ci r cumst ance s her e ( i ncl udi ng t h e pr os ecut i on’ s pi ece m eal appr oach t o t ender i ng di s covery ) put heri n a pos i t i on w her e s he coul d notcompet ent l y p roc eed t o r epr es entPazden a tt r i al a b s e n t m o re tim e to a d e q u a te ly p re p a re . I ndeed, fr om w h at w e ca n det er m i ne fr om t he tr i al j udge’ s comm ent s , M s . B ar t os i s an exc ept i onal l yt al ent ed and pr ofes s i onal at t or neyw ho w oul d have done a comm endabl e j ob o f re p re se n tin g P a z d e n if sh e h a d b e e n a f f o rd e d a r e a s o n a b le o p p o rt u n ity to p re p a re f o r t ri a l. 23 1136, 1140 ( 10t h C i r . 1997)

. T he “c o u rt [m us t ] deci de 10 w hethert he def

endantw as bow i ng to the i nevi t abl e or v o lun tari lyan d af

firm ati v elyw aivin g h is r igh t t o co u n sel.” U ni t ed Stat es v. Sa l e mo , 61 F. 3 d 214, 222 ( 3d C i r . 1995) (q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ); s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es ex r el

. Mar t i nez , 526 F. 2d 750, 75 5 -6 ( 2d C i r . 1975) ( “appe l l antw as gi ven no fr eedom of choi ce t o deci d e w h etherhe w i s hed t o defe nd hi m s el f. H i s choi ce, i f choi ce i tca n be ca l l ed, w as bas ed en ti relyo n h is bo w ing to the inev it ab le. ”).
T h is im p o se s o n th e trial c o u rt, “th e w e ig h ty re sp o n sib ili tyo f

c o n d u c tin g a su f

f icie n tlyp e n e tra tin g in q u iryto s at i s fyi t s el f t hat t he defenda nt ’ s w ai ver of couns el i s know i ng and under s t andi ng as w el l as vol unt ary . ” U ni t ed S tat es v. P epp ers , 302 F. 3d 120, 130- 31 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. “A j udge ca n m a k e c e rta in th a t an a c c u se d ’s p r o f e s s e d w a iv e r o f

c o u n se l is under s t an di ngl yand w i s el ym ade onl yfr om a pene t r at i ng andI n U ni t ed Stat es v. W

el t y, 6 7 4 F

. 2 d 1 8 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 2 ) , we 11 e x p lain e d th e tw o p a r t in q u irya trial c o u rt m u st m a k e to det er m i ne i f t her e i s “good ca us e” t o gr anta r eques t ed cont i nuance on t he eve o f tr i al t o aff or d a def

endantan oppor tuni t yt o reta i n s ubs t i tut e couns el

. A l t hough W e lty w as deci ded on di r ect appea l , “[t ] he s ame st andar d fordet er m i ni ng w h e th er a defe nd ant w ai ved his ri gh t t o coun sel app l i es in fede ral cou rthab eas corpus revi ew of st at e cou rtproceed i ng s. P i ankhy v

. C uyl er , 703 F. 2d 728, 731 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 1983) ( ci t i ng B r e we rv . Wi l l i a ms , 4 3 0 U

. S

. 3 8 7 (19 7 7 )). H ow ever , t he W

e lty tw o p art i n q u iryis no t r elev an t here becau se i ti s cl ear fro m t his recor d thatP azden did not r equ est su b sti tute co u n sel. R athe r, h e re lented to the tri al co u rt ’s in sis ten c e th a t trial p ro c e e d , an d w e n t to trial w ith o u t th e b e n e f it o f c o u n se l. 24 compre hens i ve exa m i nat i on of al l t he ci rcumst ance s under w hi ch such a pl ea i s r ender ed. ” V on Mol tke v

. G i l l i es , 33 2 U. S. 708, 7 2 4 ( 1 9 4 8 )

. I n c o n d u c t i n g t h i s e x a mi n a t i o n a c o u r tc an eval uat e the mot i ves behi nd defe ndant ’ s di s m i s s al of couns el and dec i s i on t o pr ocee d pr o se . U ni t ed Stat es v. St ubbs , 281 F

. 3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). M o reo v er, al tho u g h the re co rd her e does nots ugges tt hatPazden’ s r eq u est fora cont i nuance w as m ani pul at i ve, w e have caut i oned that “eve n w el l

- founded s us pi ci ons of i nt ent i onal del ayand mani pul at i v e tact i cs can provide no subst i tute for the inquir i es necessar yt o p rot ec t a defe ndant ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

el t y, 674 F .2 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3 d C ir.1 9 8 2 ); see al so B uhl , 233 F. 3d at796. 11 A l t hough, a t r i al cour t rul i ng on a r eques tfora cont i nuance m ay cert ai nl ycons i ders uch fa ct or s as “the i m por t ance of t hePazden chal l enges onl yt he vol unt ar i nes s of hi s w ai ver , not 12 w h e th e r h is w a iv e r w a s k n o w in g a n d in te llig e n t. 25 eff i ci entadmi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce, ” B uhl , 2 3 3 F. 3 d a t7 9 7 , we have a l s o caut i oned that“a my o p ic i ns i s t ence upon expedi t i ous nes s i n t he face of a j us t i fi abl e re ques t fordel aycan re n d e r t h e ri g h t to d e f

e n d w ith c o u n s e l a n e m p ty f o rm a lity.” Mar t i nez , 5 2 6 F .2 d a t 7 5 5

.

B . P a zd en ’s R eq u est.
H er e, Pazden a r gues tha the “mer el ybow ed t o t he i ne v i t a b l e ” whe n h e “ o p t e d t o r e p r e s e n th i ms e l f a tt h e t r i a l of thi s compl ex, 133- countind ict m en t, ” b ec au se h e w as c o n fro n te d w i t h “t he uncons t i tut i onal di l emm a of e i t herr epr es ent i ng hi m s elf orpr ocee di ng t o t r i al w i t h as s i gned couns el w ho a d m itte d b e in g u n p re p a re d a n d u n f a m ilia r w ith t h e re c o rd .” T her efor e, acc or di ng t o P az d en, hi s deci s i on t o w ai ve couns el and r epr es enthi m s elf w as not “vol unt aryi n t he cons t i tut i onal s e n s e .” 12
A s w e n o t e d a b o v e , P a z d e n ’ s c o u r t

- a p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y, M s . B ar t os , s t at ed seve r al t i m es on t he r ecor d t hats he coul d not be p repar ed to go to t ri al given t he tr i al date. S pecifi cal l y , M s. B ar t os cont ended thats he w as hamper ed by( 1) t he pr os ecut i on’ s r efus al t o fur ni s h t i m el ydi s covery ; ( 2) t he pr os e c u t i o n ’ s fur ni s hi ng of di s coveryi n a pi ece m eal fas hi on and (3) her i nab i l i t yt o int ervi ew al l 56 0 w i t nesses on t he w i t ness l i stM s. B a rto s’s c o -c o u n se l, M r. S m ith , ex p lain e d to th e sta te 13 t r i al cour tt hat , “the num ber of w i t nes s es t hatw i l l be ca l l ed by t he d efen se m ayrange an yw here t o 5 0 t o 1 50

. . . T ho se w itn e ss e s h a v e . . . o u ts ta n d in g d o c u m e n ts . . . w e n e e d to in ter v iew th o se w itn e ss e s . . . It’s m yo p in io n th a t . . . w e w ill notbe r eadyt o t r yt hi s cas e on February13. ” M r . Sm i t h added,

“ [ t] h e re a re a n u m b e r o f o u ts ta n d in g re q u e s ts f o r d is c o v e ry . . . T here are tho usand s of do cum ents t o b e revi ew e d a n d I j ust d o n ’t se e h o w , e v e n w ith tw o a tto rn e y s w o rk in g o n th is ca se it c o u ld b e re a d yb yth e 1 3 .” th
A p p . 2 6 2

. 26 befor e tr i al w as t o begi n. In a l et t ert o t he tr i al courtdat ed 13 Jan uary29, 1996, M s . B ar t os expl ai ned thats he w oul d be re q u e s tin g a p o s tp o n e m e n t o f th e tr ia l d a te b e c a u s e , in tera lia , [o] n J anuary26, 1996, t he Pr os ecut or ’ s O ffi ce, i n t he gui s e of del i ver i ng di s covery r el evant t o t he n e w In d ic tm e n t . . . d e liv e re d to d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a p a c k e tof di s covery. . . I t ems 13 t hr ough 37 o b v i ou sl y rel at e to [ th e o ld In d ictm e n t] a n d , w h ile p re su m a b ly i n t he poss es s i on of t he Pr os ecut or du ri ng t h e du rat i on of these pr ocee di ngs , have onl ynow been del i ver ed t o defe ns e couns el on J a n u a r y 2 6 , 1 9 9 6 – s o m e 1 8 d a ys27 p rio r t o th e d a te sc h e d u led f o r tria l. M o r e i mpo r t a n t l y , a r e v i e w o f t he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned i n It em s 13 and 33 raise cru cial i ssu es conce r ni ng t he pr oces s i ng and appr oval of t he Publ i c O ffe r i ng St at ement byt he D epart m entof C om m uni t yA ffa i r s and al er tt he d e f e n se to th e e x iste n c e o f c e rt a in d o cu m en ts. T h ese d o cu m en ts are n o t a p o rt ion o f th e d isco v ery s uppl i ed byt he Pr os ecut or ’ s O ffi ce and ar e noti n t he pos s es s i on of t he d e f e n s e . Hav i n g b e e n a l e r t e d by t hi s d i s coverypr ovi ded byt he Pr os ec u tor’s O ffi ce of t he i m po rt ance o f t hese d ocu m ents , defe ns e couns el w oul d notbe ac ti n g i n t he bes ti nt er es tof t he cl i entnorpr ovi di ng abl e and e f f e c tiv e c o u n se l in p ro c e e d in g to tr ia l a t th is tim e . A pp. 252.
I n respons e t o t hi s di s covery , M s . B ar t os i s s ued a su b p o e n a to o b tain a ll th e f iles o f th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

C o m m u n ity A ffa i r s tha tper t ai ned t o t he r egi s t r at i on and appr oval of t he R i ve r v i e w Vi l l a g e p r o j e c t

. Sh e th e r e a f

t e r l e a r n e d f

r o m an e m p lo y ee of

C om m un i t yA ffair s that s om e of the do cum ents w e re i n the possessi on of the O ffi ce of t he A t t orneyG eneral;W e r ecogni ze thatone of the r eas ons M s. B ar t os w as l eft 14 w i t h s o l i t t l e t i m e t o intervi ew t he pot ent i al w i t nes s es w as P a z d e n ’ s f

a i l u r e t o s u p p l y h e r w i t h t h e w i t n e s s l i s tu n t i l J a n u a r y, 1996. H o w ev er, as alread yn o ted, M s. B artos’s req u est fo r a cont i nuance w as bas ed on fa ct or s that w er e pr i m ar i l ybey ond h e r, o r P a z d e n ’s, c o n tro l. 28 t her efor e, C om m uni t yA ffa i r s coul d notpr ovi de them t o t he defe ns e att hat t i m e. M s . B ar t os al s o expl ai ned t o t he s t at e tr i al c o u rt th a t th e “ d o c u m e n ts are c ritica l to th e d e f e n se . . . n o t o n ly in th e p r e p a r a tio n o f

th e d e f e n se , b u t th e ir a v a ilab ili tyis e s s e n tia l in th e c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n o f th e S ta te s ’ w itn e s s e s .” A p p . 2 5 2

. A d d iti o n a lly , M s. B a rto s ex p lain e d to th e c o u rt th a t, beca us e t he w i t nes s l i s t cons i s t ed of 560 names, “i t w oul d have b e e n v irtu a llyim p o s sib le f o r [ h e r] to c o n tac t, t o in ter v iew , to e v a l u a t e i n a s s e s s i n g t h o s e w i t n e s s e s a p p e a r i n g i n t h a tv e r y, verys hor tper i od of t i m e. ” A pp. 116- 17. 14
N evertheless, t he courtdeni ed M s . B ar t os ’ s r eques tfor a cont i nuance . C ons equent l y , bel i evi ng t hat he w as t hen bett er pr epar ed fort r i al t han M s . B ar t os , Pazden “chos e t o” r epr es ent hi m s el f and pr ocee d t o t r i al w i t h M s . B ar t os act i ng as s t and- by couns el

. Pur s uantt o t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n V on Mol tke , t he tr i al cour t conduct ed an i nqui r yt o “dec i de w hether [Pazde n] w as bow i ng t o t he i nevi t abl e orvol unt ar i l yand aff i r m at i vel yw ai vi ng hi s r i ghtt o couns el

. ” See V o n Mol tke , 3 3 2 U .S . at 7 2 2 ; Sa l e mo , 61 F. 3d at220. T hatcol l oquyi s s et f o rt h a t le n g th a b o v e . See p p 6 -8 , s upr a. U p o n c o n c lu d in g th is col l oquy , t he courtfound, “w i t h r egar d t o [Pazde n’ s ] choi ce to re p re se n t h im se lf

, I’m sa tisf

ied th a t th is is s o m e th in g th a t isI n herdi s s ent i ng opi ni on, J udge R endel l w r i t es , “I w onder 15 w hethera def

endantw ho has t hr ee y ear s t o pr epar e fort r i al , can legiti m atelyco m p lai n th at his S ixth A m en d m en t r igh ts w ere vi ol a t e d b a s e d o n h i s de c i s i on t o r e pr e s e nthi mse l f because c o u n se l w a s n o t p r e p a r e d .” D iss e n t at 2 . H e r c o n c e rn is w e ll tak e n . H o w e v e r, th is re c o rd is re p lete w ith sta tem e n ts, n o t o n ly fro m P az d en , b u t also fro m M s. B artos (an d h er co ll ea g u e M r. S m ith ), th a t e n u m e ra te th e re a so n s f o r a sk in g f

o r a th re e m o n th t r i al del ay . A s not ed above , thes e r eas ons i ncl uded the 29 hi s vol unt ar ychoi ce. ” C . A n alysi s. C learly , u n d er Fa re tta , Pazden ha d t he r i ght to w ai ve c o u n se l an d p r o c e e d to trial pro se . H o w e v e r, P a z d e n c o u ld onl yhave done s o i f he w as “vol unt ar i l yexer ci s i ng hi s i nfor m ed fr ee w i l l

. ” S e e Fa re tta , 422 U

. S. at835. “[T] her e ca n be no doubtt hat[t hos e w ho w r ot e the B i l l of R i ght s ] under s t ood t he i nes t i m abl e w or t h of fr ee choi ce. ” Id

. at 833. H er e, Pazden w as n o t ex e rc is in g h is f

re e w ill , b u t w a s in ste a d c o m p e lled to pr ocee d pro se o nl ybeca us e hi s at t or neyhad notbeen gi ven enough t i m e t o fami l i ar i ze her s el f w i t h t he r el evantbackgr ound of hi s cas e. T he r ecor d her e s uppor t ’ s Pazden’ s cont ent i on t hat hi s deci s i on t o pr ocee d pr o s e w a s n o t a n e x e rc ise o f f re e w ill , ra th e r it w a s th e re su lt o f h im “ b o w in g to th e in e v itab le.” T h is rec o rd is rep let e w ith stat em en ts a n d su b m issi o n s b yP az d en ’s a tto rn e ye x p lain in g th a t sh e w a s u n p re p a re d to p ro c e e d to trial, as w el l as s t at ement s by Pazden expl ai ni ng t he di l emm a he w as pl ace d i n byt he l at e di s coveryand the i nfl exi bl e tr i al dat e. 15pr os ecut i on’ s r efus al to fur ni s h t i m el ydi s covery , t he pr os ecut i on’ s fur ni s hi ng of di s coveryin a pi ece m eal fas hi on, and def ens e couns el ’ s i nabi l i t yt o i nt er vi ew al l of t he w i t nes s es o n th e w itn e s s lis t b e f

o re th e tr ia l w a s to b e g in

. See pp 4- 6, 19- 2 1 , supra . A cc o rdin g ly , w e c an n o t agre e w ith the d issen t’ s concl us i on t hat“[i ] t w as t he i m pos s i bi l i t yof i nt er vi ew i ng [al l of t he w i t n esses on t he w i t ness l i stt hat Pazd en p rovi ded t o M s. B ar tos] t hatw as att he hea r tof [M s . B ar t os ’ s ] purpor t ed i nab i l i t yt o p roce e d in m i d-Feb ruar y . ” D i ssentat1. M s. B a rto s’s in a b ili tyto in ter v iew a ll o f th o se w itn e ss e s w a s m e re ly o n e o f a n u m b e r o f

f a c to rs th a t le a d to h e r r e q u e s t. M o reo v er, th e tri al co u rt c o u ld h av e c o n d u cted a m o re t hor ough i nqui r y and det er m i ned i f t her e w as “good ca us e” f or the re q u ested co n ti n u an ce . T h u s, n o tw ith stan d ing the d issen t’ s under s t andabl e conc erns , abs enta more pr obi ng i nqui r yt han w a s c o n d u c ted h e re , this re c o rd sim p lyd o e s n o t su p p o rt a concl us i on t hatPazden’ s w ai verof hi s Si xt h A m endment r i ght t o c o u n s e l w a s v o l u n t a r y. 30 Pazden e xpl ai ned thathe w as compel l ed t o pr ocee d pro se b yt h e f

a c tt h a tc o u n s e l “ wa s p r e v e n t e d f r o m g i v i n g [ h i m] e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e b y late d isc o v e ry . . . an d b yth e f a c t th a t th is C o u r th a s n ’ tg i v e n h e rt h e o p p o r tu n i t y t o r e v i e w t h e d i s c o v e r y, t o do a p r o p e ri n v e s t i g a t i o n . ” App

. 1 0 8

. Nev e r t h e l e s s , he emphasi zed that“M i s s B ar t os , i f gi ven an a dj our nm entand gi ven the oppor tuni t yw oul d know t he fact s as w el l as [he di d] and i f s he knew t he fa ct s as w el l as [he di d] t hen [he w oul d be] pr epar ed t o go t o t r i al

. ” A pp. 109. I n addi t i on, he bel i eved that d isa g re e m e n ts w it h s o m e o f M s. B a rto s’s d e c isio n s “ w o u ld e v a p o ra te if

[ M s . B a rt o s ] w a s g iv e n a c h a n c e to s tu d yth e f a c ts .”A ppel l ees ar gue thatPazden’ s “cl ai m of s el ect i ng t he l es s er 16 of t he t w o evi l s byappea r i ng pro se i s pl ai nl ya ruse – an at t empt t o bui l d a r ecor d by an arr ogant , hi ghl yi nt el l i gent , but m o ra llyb a n k ru p t, crim in a l w h o th ro u g h o u t th is tr ia l tried to m ani pul at e and dece i ve t he t r i al C our t

. ” A ppel l ees ’ br i ef a t37. T h a t“ a r g u m e n t ” i s , o f

c o u r s e , n e i t h e rr e l e v a n tt o o u ri n q u i r y, nordoes i tqual i fyas l egal ar gum ent

. R ather , i ti s a gr atui t ous ad hom i nem at t ack thatdetr act s fr om t he per s uas i venes s of t he g o v e r n m e n t’s a rg u m e n t as w e ll as th e p ro f e ss io n a lism o f

its p rese n tat ion

. W e sho u ld no t h av e t o rem ind o ff icers of the c o u rt th a t su c h p e rso n a l co m m e n ts h a v e lit tle p lac e in a n a p p e llate b ri e f

. M o re o v e r, ev e n if th e th ru s t o f w h a t th e g o v e rn m e n t is appar ent l yt ry ing t o conveyw as appr opr i at e, i tw oul d s t i l l be irre le v a n t. W e re m in d th e a p p e llee s th a t w e h a v e p re v io u sly not ed t hat “[e ] ven w el l

- founded s us pi ci ons of i nt ent i onal del ay and mani pulat ive t act i cs can pr ovi de no s ubs t i tut e fort he i nqui r i es nece s s aryt o pr ot ecta de fenda nt ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” W

e lty , 6 7 4 F .2 d a t 1 8 9 ; see al so B uhl , 233 F. 3d at796. 31 H ow ever, as Pazd en ex press ed , th e cou rt ’s den i al of M s. B a rto s’s re q u e st f

o r a th re e -m o n th a d

jo u rn m e n t f

o rc e d h im to choos e betw een the “l es s erof t w o evi l s , ” ef fec t i vel yl eavi ng hi m w i t h “no choi ce i n t h[e] m att er” atal l

. A pp. 105, 108, 16 109, 111. T hi s har dl ycons t i tut es a volunt arychoi ce t o w ai ve o n e’s S ixth A m en d m en t r igh t t o co u n sel u n d er Fa re tta , a n d it i s i ncons i s t entw i t h t eac hi ngs of Johns on . A s w e n o te d a b o v e , s upr a at n. 9, i n deci di n g w h et her P a z d e n c o u ld c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro c e e d to trial pro se , the sta teT he tr i al cour t ’ s rul i ng w as aff i r m ed i n an unpubl i s hed 17 opi ni on t hatnei t her s i de i ncl uded i n anyappendi x fi l ed w i t h us forthi s appea l

. M or e o v e r , d u r i n g a r g u m ent , couns el r epr es ent ed t hatt he dec i s i on of t he appel l at e cour t does not add t o t he tr i al co u rt ’s an aly sis. A cc o rdin g ly , w e f o cu s o n the stat e tri al co u rt ’s re a s o n s f o r d e n y in g P a z d e n ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t c la im

.

32 t r i a l c o u r tr e l i e d u p o n S t at e v. G al l agher , 64 4 A

. 2d 10 3 (N

. J. S u p e r. 1 9 9 4 ). H o w e v e r, G allag her d o e s n o tf u r n i s h t he 17 c o n tro lli n g ru le o f

law . T h e re , th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s c h a rg e d w ith var i ous r acke t eer i ng offe ns es al ong w i t h four t een other s i n a m u lti- c o u n t in d ic tm e n t. Id

. at104- 05. H ow ever , ch arges a g a in st a ll o f

th e o th e r d e f

e n d a n ts w e re d ism iss e d a n d o n ly G al l agher pr ocee ded t o t r i al

. Pr i or t o t r i al , t he t r i al cour tgr ant ed hi s r eques tt o pr ocee d pr o s e . Id

. a t 1 0 6 . In m a k in g th a t re q u e st, G a llag h e r in f

o rm e d th e c o u rt th a t h e h a d su c c e ss f u lly r epr es ent ed hi m s el f i n t w o ot her fede r al cr i m i nal t r i al s , he had c o m p le ted tw o y e a rs o f law sc h o o l, an d th a t h e w a s c u rre n tly re p re s e n tin g h im s e lf in a n o n g o in g f e d e ra l r a c k e te e ri n g tr ia l. Id

. A ft er w ar ni ng G al l agher of t he danger s i nher enti n pr ocee di ng w i t houtcouns el , t he cour tappoi nt ed s t andbycouns el and al l ow ed hi m t o r epr es enthi m s el f. H ow ev er, fol l ow i ng an excha ng e o f

l e t t e r s a n d a d i s p u t e o v e rs o me mot i o n s t h at G al l agher w ant ed t o fi l e, t he tr i al cour tr es ci nded thator derand requi red G al l agh er t o p roceed to t ri al repr esent ed b ydefe nse c o u n s e l. Id . at 1 0 7 . T h e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t G a llag h e r “ d id not‘ app rec iat e t he i ns and out s of .

. . m ot i on pr act i ce. ’ ” Id

. (e llip s is in o ri g in a l)

. O n ap p ea l, the A p p ell ate D ivisi o n o f the S u p erior C o u rtI ti s , of cour s e, t he i s s ue her e. 18 T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on’ s r el i ance on Fa re tta w as th ere fo re 19 a p p r o p r i a t e b e c a u s e i n F a r e tta , as i n G al l agher , the tri al co u rt r es ci nded a pr i or or dergr ant i ng t he r i ghtt o pr ocee d pro se and r equi r ed the def

endantt o pr ocee d t o t r i al r epr es ent ed bycouns el b a se d u p o n th e c o n c e rn s tha t th e d e f e n d a n t co u ld n o t ad e q u a tely re p re s e n t h im s e lf

. S e e Fa re tta , 422 U

. S. at808- 09. 33 o f N ew Jerse yrev erse d , co n clud ing that the tri al co u rt ’s r e v o c a t i o n o f

t h e o r d e ra l l o wi n g Gal l a g h e rt o p r o c eed p ro se w as contr ar yt o Fa r e tta

. T he appe l l at e courtexpl ai ned that

“ Fa re tta hol ds t hat a sta t e maynotcons t i tut i onal l yi m pos e a l aw y er upon an unw i l l i ng defe ndant

. ” Id . at 1 0 8 . T h e c o u rt d id notdi s cu s s w hetherG al l agher ’ s i ni t i al w ai verhad bee n vol unt ary ; t hat w as not t he i s s ue. R ather , t he cour texpl ai ned 18 t hati tw as deci di ng “def endant ’ s cont ent i on t hathe w as deni ed h i s Si x t h Am e n d me n tr i g h tt o r e p r e s e n th i ms e l f

. ” Id

. at106. T her e w as neveranydi s pu te a b o u tw hetherhi s w ai verof couns el had bee n vol unt ary or t he re s ul t of an unc ons t i tut i onal d ilem m a su c h a s th e o n e p re se n ted h e re b e c a u se h is s o le S ix th A m e n d m e n t ar g u m e n t w a s th a t h e h a d n o t b e e n a llo w e d to w a iv e c o u n se l. 19
H e re , the sta te c o u rt b e liev e d th a t Far et t a c o n t r ol l ed P a z d e n ’s a p p e a l. H o w e v e r, F a r e tta i nvol ved a de fenda ntw ho w as deni ed hi s r i ghtt o pr ocee d pr o se a n d w a s f o rc e d in ste a d to p ro c e e d to trial w i th defe ns e couns el

. Fol l ow i ng convi ct i on, t he Supr eme C our thel d t hat t he Si xt h A m endment r i ghtt o couns el in c lu d e s th e rig h t to r e p r e s e n t o n e se lf in a c rim in a l trial.34 Fa re tta , 4 2 2 U .S . a t 8 3 6

. Fa re tta does notcontr ol w her e, as her e, a def

endant ’ s deci s i on t o pr ocee d pr o s e i s “ i n v o l u n t a r y” i n t he cons t i tut i onal s ens e. T hatr equi r es an i nqui r yi nt o t he v o lu n ta ri n e s s o f

P a z d e n ’s p u rp o rt e d w a iv e r o f c o u n s e l.
M or eover , th e tr i a l c o u rt ’ s c o n c l u s i on t hatPazden w ai ved h i s r i g h tt o d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l wa s “ c o n t r a r yt o ” t h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Johns on , 3 0 4 U

. S

. 4 5 8

. Johns on in stru c ts t h a tt h e t r i a l j u d g e h a s “ t h e s e r i o u s a n d w e i g h t y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y” of det erm ining i f a de fenda nt ’ s r i ghtt o couns el has been w a iv e d , an d p ro h ib its f

o rc in g a d e f

e n d a n t to trial a b se n t a v a lid w a iv e r o f

th is S i x t h A m e n d m e n t r ig h t. Id . a t 4 6 5

. Johns on requi res t hat w e “i nd ulge everyreas on able p res um pti on against w ai verof funda m ent al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s and thatw e do not pr es um e acqui es cenc e i n t he l os s of funda m ent al r i ght s . ” Id

. at 4 6 4 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). A s t he C our texpl ai ned th e re : Si nce t he Si xt h A m endment

cons t i t ut i onall y en t i t l es one char ged w it h cr i m e t o t he as s i s t ance of couns el , compl i ance w ith th is c o n sti tu tio n a l m a n d a te is an es sen t i a l j u r i s d i c t i onal p r e r e q u i s i t e t o a f

e d e r a l c o u r t 's author i t yt o depr i ve an a ccus ed of h is lif e o r lib e r ty. W h e n th is r i ght i s pr op erl yw ai ved, t he as s i s t ance o f co u n sel is no lon g er a n ec essa ry el em e n t o f

th e c o u rt' s ju risd ictio n to pr ocee d t o convi ct i on and s ent ence . If t he ac cus ed, how ever , i s not35 r epr es ent ed bycouns el and has not c o m p e tent l y a n d in tellig e n tly w ai ved hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght , t he S i xth A m end m ent s t and s as a ju ri sdi ct i on al bar to a v a lid convi ct i on and s ent ence depr i vi ng h im o f h is lif e o r h is lib e rt y . 304 U

. S

. at 4 6 7

- 468. I n Sa l e mo , w e expl ai ned that“[a ] defe ndantw i l l notnor m al l ybe deemed t o have w ai ved the r i ght t o couns el by reluct ant l yagr eei ng t o pr ocee d pr o s e under ci r cumst ance s w her e i tm ayappea rt hatt her e i s no choi ce. ” 61 F .3 d a t 2 2 1 . W e e x p lain e d :

[ t]h e C o u rt[ ] h a s s c ru p u lo u sly r equi r ed thata def

endant ' s w ai ver of couns el be bot h vol unt aryand a "know i ng and i n t e l l i g e n t r e l i n q u i s h me n to ra b a n d o n me n tof a k n o w n ri g h t o r p r iv ile g e ." E dw ar ds v. A r iz ona, 451 U

. S. 477, 482, 101 S. C t

. 1880, 1883- 84, 68 L

. E d. 2d 378 ( 1981)

. W hether a d e f e n d a n t h a s v o l u n t a r i l y, k n o w in g ly a n d int ellige n tly r el i nqui s hed the r i ghtt o couns el "de pends i n each cas e ' upon t he par t i cul arfac t s and ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t hatcas e, i ncl udi ng t he bac k g r o u n d , exper i ence , and c o n d u c to f

t h e a c c u s e d

. ' " I

d.See a l so W i lks , 627 F. 2d at36 ( “A cl earchoi ce be t w een 20 tw o a ltern a tiv e c o u rse s o f a c tio n d o e s n o t alw a y s p e rm it a p e tit io n e r to m a k e a v o lu n tar y d e c isio n . If a c h o ice p re se n ted to a pet i t i oneri s cons t i tut i onal l y offe ns i ve, t hen the choi ce c annot b e v o lu n tar y. . . T h e p e rm iss ib ili tyo f th e c h o ice p re se n ted to t he pet i t i oner. . . d epends on w hethert he al t ernat i ve t o s el frep rese n tat ion o ff

ere d o p era ted to d ep ri v e h im o f a fa il tr ial

. ”); Mayn ard , 545 F. 2d at 278 ( “[a ] cr i m i nal defe ndantm ay[not ] be as ked .

. . t o choos e betw een w ai verand anot h er co u rs e of a c ti on [i f] the ch oice pr esent ed to hi m i s . . . con st i tutio n a lly o f f e n siv e .”); U

ni t ed Stat es ex r el

. M

ar t i nez , 526 F. 2d at756 ( appel l ant ’ s choi ce, “i f choi ce i t ca n be ca l l ed, w as bas ed en ti relyo n h is bo w ing to the inev it ab le. ”). 36 Sa l e mo , 61 F. 3d at218. I n ci t i ng E dw ar ds , w e not ed thatt he C our tw as t her e quot i ng Johns on , 304 U

. S. at464. Si m i l ar l y , i n Sa n c h ez v . Mo n dr agon , 858 F. 2d 1462, 1 4 6 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ), r eve rs ed on othergr ounds , the c o u rt expl ai n ed , “[a ] choi ce be t w een i ncompet entorunpr epar ed couns el and appe ar i ng pr o s e i s a di l emm a of c ons t i tut i onal m agni tude. T he choi ce t o pr ocee d pro se c a n n o t b e v o lu n tar yin t he cons t i tut i onal s ens e w hen such a di l emm a exi s t s . ” ( I nt ernal cit ati o n s an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). 20
A s w e e x p lain e d a b o v e , the trial c o u rt d id in q u ire in to w h e th e r P a z d e n k n o w in g ly, in tellig e n tlya n d v o lu n tar ily re lin q u ish e d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts. H o w e v e r, in co n d u cti n g the in q u iry , the tri al j u d g e e ith er ign o red P az d en ’sD es pi t e t he d issent ’ s conce r ns , t he tr i al j udge di d not 21 concl ude tha t Pazden w as “agr eei ng” t o pr ocee d pro se as a s t r at egyort act i c and notbeca us e of a genui ne bel i ef that d e f e n s e c o u n s e l wa s n o ts u f f i c i e n t l y p r e p a r e d t o r e p r e s e n th i m. M o re o v e r, th e p ro se c u tio n ’s a p p ro a c h to d isc o v e ryis c e rta in ly c o n sis ten t w ith d e f

e n se c o u n se l’s c o n c e rn s a b o u t b e in g a b le to a d e q u a telyre p re se n t P a z d e n . W e th e re f o re c o n c lu d e th a t th is r eco rd is sim p lyn o t suf

ficien t t o estab li sh that P az d en ’s de cisi on t o w ai ve couns el and pr ocee d pro se w a s v o l u n t a r y. 37 ans w er s orfai l ed t o r eal i ze thei r const i tut i onal s i gni fi canc e. 21 A s a re su lt, th e tria l c o u rt’s r e jec tio n o f

P a z d e n ’s S ix th A m en d m en tcl ai m w as contr aryt o t he pr onouncement s of Johns on . Pazden’ s w ai ver of couns el w as notvol unt aryi n t he co n sti tuti o n al sen se. M o re o v e r, to the e x tent the s tat e c o u rt r el i ed upon Fa re tta , i t s deci s i on i s an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of the rul e t he C our t announce d t her e bec aus e Fa re tta does not a p p ly h e re . “[I ] ti s [t her efor e] the dutyof [th is] co u rt t o gr ant t he [ha beas corpus ] w r i t

. ” Johns on , 3 0 4 U .S . a t 4 6 9

.

I V . C onc l us i on. For t he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of fe der al habea s r el i ef a nd r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o gr antt he w r i ti f t he def endanti s not re tr ie d in 1 8 0 d a y s .38 

### Paz de n v. Maur e r , No. 03- 4236 - di s s e nt i ng R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge.
T he i ns t ant m at t er unfor tunat el y fal l s i nt o t he ca t egoryof c a s e s w h ic h e x e m p lif

y th e a d a g e th a t “ b a d f

a c ts m a k e b a d la w ,” H aig v. A gee , 4 5 3 U .S

. 2 8 0 , 3 1 9 (1 9 8 1 ), a n d th e re f o re , I r es pect ful l ydi s s ent

. M i chae l Pazden has advanc ed tw o s t r ong, but di amet r i cal l y oppos ed, ar gum ent s . H e fi r s tur ges t hathe w as for ced t o pr ocee d t o t r i al , and t o defe nd hi m s el f pro se becau se h is la w y er d id n o t hav e su ff ici en t t im e to p rep are , three y ea rs aft er h e w as i ndi ct ed. Second, he cont ends t hathi s r i ghtt o a s peedyt r i al w as vi ol at ed bas ed on t he fac t he w as notaff or ded a tr i al fo r th ree y ear s . T hi s s houl d, i f not hi ng el s e, gi ve us paus e. I fi nd Pazden’ s s ens e o f co m pul s i on – w hi ch he r e p e a t e d l yc h a r a c t e r i z e d a s a c h o i c e “ b e t we e n t h e l e s s e ro f t wo evi l s ” – t o be m i s pl ace d. ( M i chae l Pazden, T r ans . Feb. 15, 1996 at30) T he onl y compul s i on s i ncer el y fel t her e w as byt he tr i al j udge, w ho, as t hose o f u s w ho have be en tr i al j udges m ay r ecogni ze, ar e fa ced w i t h defe ndant s w ho s ett r aps fort he unw ary . I n m yvi ew , w hi ch I bel i eve i s s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d, M i chae l Pazden f

ace d no r eal evil s ; r ather , he w as i nt enton m a k in g h is c a s e f

o r j u s t w h a t th e m a

jo ri ty h a s o rd e re d

. W hi l e i ti s t rue that s om e di s covery w as nottur ned over unt i l Sept ember 1994, and st i l l ot her i t ems i n J anuaryof 1995, nonet hel es s M s . B ar t os not ed thatt he w i t nes s l i st – of 560 n ames – w as notpr ovi ded byherow n cl i ent , M i chae l Pazden, unt i l J anuary 1995. I t w as t he i m pos s i bi l i t y of int er vi ew i ng th e m a ll th a t w a s a t th e h e a rt o f h e r p u rp o rte d in a b ili tyto pr ocee d i n m i d- February . I n addi t i on, m anyof t he r ecor ds i n t heIn f a c t, d u ri n g th e tr ia l, a t th e d ir e c tio n o f th e tr ia l ju d g e , a 22 l i eut enantw as di s pat ched t o Pazden’ s r es i dence w her e r ecor ds i ncl udi ng canc el ed che cks , bank st at ement s , r egi s t er s and s tubs w er e l ocat ed notw i t hs t andi ng Pazde n ’ s i ns i s t ence t hathe w as n o t in po sses sion o f suc h rec o rds. A s n o ted b ythe p rose cu tor, “95 per ce n t of t he evi dence i n t hi s cas e comes fr om M r. P a z d e n .” (A tto rn e y S n o w d e n , T ra n s . F e b . 1 5 , 1 9 9 6 a t 3 9 .) 39 c a se w e re lo c a ted in P a z d e n ’s h o u se . T h e n u m e ro u s c o u n ts in 22 t he i ndi ct m entw er e bas ed on the num b er o f vi ct i m s , nott he compl e x i t yo f

Pa z d e n ’ s s c h e me . Th e p r o s e c u t o ri n t h i s c a s e, w ho w as as s i gned t he mat t eri n D ece m ber1994, thr ee mont hs a ft erM s . B ar t os began t o r epr es entPazden, conduct ed more th a n 5 0 in ter v iew s in a sh o rt sp a n o f tim e a n d w a s p re p a re d to p ro c e e d . (A tto rn e yS n o w d e n , T ra n s . F e b . 1 5 , 1 9 9 6 a t 3 9 .)
A l t hough I agr ee w i t h t he m ajorit yt hatad homi nem att acks s houl d notbe empl oy ed t o under m i ne cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , nonet hel es s , I w onder w hether a defe ndantw ho has t hr ee y ears t o p repar e for t ri al and do es not gi ve cou nsel a w i t ness l i st u n til o n e m o n th b e f

o re trial, c a n leg iti m a tely c o m p lain th a t h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts w e re v io late d b a se d o n h is d e c isio n to r epr es enthi m s el f bec aus e couns el w as notpr epared

. V i ew ed fro m a sli g h tl y d iffe ren t van tage p o int, p erh ap s w e h av e b ef o re u s n o th in g m o re th a n a ju d icia l d e c isio n n o t to g ra n t a cont i nuance i n t h e exer ci s e of a cour t ’ s di s cr et i on, and i n the fac e of a compani on s peedytr ial argument

. I not e thatt he m a jo rityf o c u se s o n P a z d e n ’s c h o ice , n o t th e c o llo q u yo r h is under s t andi ng of w hat he w as embar ki ng upon, s o I ques t i on t he ap p li c a b il ityo f e ith er Johns on o r Fa re tta . In ste a d , I w o u ld40 s ugges ttha tt he cons t i tut i onal i nqui r yactual l ys houl d be s om ew hatbr oader and expl or e “vol unt ar i nes s , ” bycons i der i ng w hetherPazden d i d vol unt ar i l ym ake hi s deci s i on byvi r tue of h is o w n d ila to ryc o n d u c t. A n d , in a n ye v e n t, I am u n a b le to l ocat e anySupr eme C our to pi ni on ei t heron poi nt , ort hathas announce d a pr i n ciple t hatappl i es her e, s uch thatI do not bel i eve J udge M ar m o’ s pr ocee di n g t o t r i al , w i t h Pazden re p re se n tin g h im se lf

, w a s “ c o n tra ry to ” o r a n “ u n re a so n a b le a p p lic a tio n ” o f

e s ta b lis h e d S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t.