Opinion ID: 1980427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Factual Context of the Right to Self-Representation and the Due Process Issues

Text: On September 9, 2004, Mr. Hill informed the trial judge that he had expressed his desire to represent himself when he appeared before a magistrate judge. During the trial court's inquiry concerning his ability to represent himself, Mr. Hill revealed that he is a high school graduate, studies law at home on his own, and had represented himself once before with a good result. He insisted that he was able to represent himself and did not want a public defender. At the trial court's request, on September 13, 2004, Dr. Mary Elizabeth Kenel, a clinical psychologist employed by the Forensic Services Administration of the District's Department of Mental Health, conducted a competency evaluation. She reported that Mr. Hill was diagnosed, on October 22, 1997, with Schizophrenia, Paranoid, Chronic with Acute Exacerbation, and on February 5, 2002, with Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. He suffers from depression and Grand Mal seizures. However, Dr. Kenel concluded that he was able to function properly, and that mental health factors do not substantially impair his capacity to have a factual and rational understanding of the proceedings against him and to properly assist counsel with the preparation of his defense. Dr. Kenel was aware of Mr. Hill's determination to represent himself in court, and found nothing to indicate [he] would be unable to conduct himself appropriately in the courtroom, and he identified proper courtroom behavior. On October 8, 2004, Mr. Hill again appeared before the trial court and asserted that he wanted to represent himself. The trial court determined that Mr. Hill was competent but explained the problems with self-representation, and why Mr. Hill needed a lawyer to advise him. Mr. Hill told the trial judge that he wanted to bring a restraining order against his newly appointed attorney. As he put it, I don't want him near me. On October 21, 2004, Mr. Hill's assigned counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, which the trial court granted. The judge explained to Mr. Hill the difficulties of self-representation and the intricacies of criminal law. He informed Mr. Hill that he would not be treated differently, that he would have to file appropriate motions, and serve [them] appropriately. The court concluded that Mr. Hill could represent himself, and scheduled a substantive status hearing for January 19, 2005. The judge appointed another counsel to advise Mr. Hill. At the trial court's request, on January 26, 2005, Dr. Kenel conducted a competency screening examination of Mr. Hill. Dr. Kenel reported that Mr. Hill has a basic knowledge of the judicial process and the roles of various court officials. She noted that he was representing himself at this point, and he was aware of the need to behave appropriately in the courtroom and expressed his willingness to comply. Finally, she again expressed the opinion that: Mr. Hill is competent because mental health factors do not substantially impair his capacity to have a factual and rational understanding of the proceedings against him and to properly assist counsel with the preparation of his defense. Trial began on May 9, 2005. The trial court explained to the jury what it meant when Mr. Hill announced that he was proceeding pro se: Pro se means representing himself. I have also asked an experienced lawyer to assist Mr. Hill if Mr. Hill wants that assistance. So, that is why I have an attorney who will be here available to assist Mr. Hill[,] if Mr. Hill wants that assistance. He is there to stand by and help out, if necessary. During the voir dire of the jury venire, Mr. Hill spoke for himself. As the trial proceeded on May 10, 2005, Mr. Hill made his own opening statement before the jury. [6] He also personally cross-examined all four of the government's witnesses, raising questions about the details of each witness' direct testimony about the K Street incidents, the photo array identification of Eric Hill, and the search of his apartment. When Mr. Hill took the stand as a witness for the defense, the trial court inquired whether he wanted the attorney advisor to ask [him] a few questions to get [him] oriented or get [him] started. Mr. Hill responded, No. When he stated, What I want the jury to know is that the government left out documentation from the lead detective, the government objected, and the trial judge explained that Mr. Hill could not show the jury documents until they had been admitted into evidence. Mr. Hill continued by complaining about the absence of the lead detective from the proceedings. When he again made known his desire that the jury hear the audiotape of the lead detective, the judge said he would listen to it out of the presence of the jury to determine if it was admissible, that he would also look at any documents that Mr. Hill wanted to present to the jury to see whether any could be admitted into evidence, and if Mr. Hill wanted to tell the jury anything else, he certainly could. Mr. Hill responded, Thanks, guys. He did not give any documents or audiotapes to the judge. The judge then adjourned the proceedings for the day. The following day, May 11, 2005, the trial court indicated, out of the presence of the jury, that the government could cross-examine Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill protested that he didn't put on [his] defense. He took issue with the trial court's statement that he had rested his defense. After the jurors were brought into the courtroom, and following a short cross-examination of Mr. Hill, the parties made closing arguments. Mr. Hill made his own objections to the government's argument, and addressed the jury himself in behalf of the defense. [7]