Opinion ID: 2772305
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Actions of the Trial Court

Text: Marquardt next alleges that the trial court placed unreasonable restrictions on him that entitle him to a new trial. When the State approached the close of its case-in-chief, the trial court requested that Marquardt provide a list of witnesses that he expected to present during his defense. The trial court stated: COURT: Okay. Jurors have left the courtroom. And as they leave the courthouse, they’ll be going in that direction? Okay. Mr. Marquardt, are you in a position to kind of give us an idea of what these witnesses that are coming up, at least for, let’s say, Friday morning? MARQUARDT: Um, um, you want to know the list of the witnesses? COURT: Well, let’s go ahead and let’s get a list of your witnesses again, and just if you could—and go slowly so I can write them down so I have notes here to go through. Marquardt then began to list the witnesses that he expected to present. When he finished, the trial court stated, “Okay. And Mr. Magrino [the prosecutor], are you aware of basically what these witnesses are about, since these are the Florida witnesses that may be available for Friday morning[?]” The prosecutor responded that he was unaware of the legal relevance of some of the witnesses listed by Marquardt. As a result, the trial court then asked Marquardt who the other - 29 - witnesses were and what testimony they would offer. Ultimately, the trial court stated: “Okay. Then subject, of course, to [the prosecutor] getting to talk to these people, I realize that’ll make things move slower but soon enough, right and correct.” The trial court did not request that the State prosecutor list which witnesses he intended to present or what testimony they would offer. Marquardt admits that no objection was raised at the time the trial court made the above-mentioned request, but contends that the inquiry created a threatening atmosphere for Marquardt and resulted in fundamental error. Marquardt asserts that the trial court placed additional requirements on him, and that this exacerbated the handicaps he already experienced while representing himself—a right which exists under Faretta and the Sixth Amendment. Because the issue was not preserved for appellate review by contemporaneous objection, it is reviewed for fundamental error. F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2003). An error is fundamental only if it reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to such an extent that a guilty verdict could not have been obtained in the absence of the alleged error. Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879, 899 (Fla. 2000). Every litigant is entitled to a neutral and impartial judge. State ex rel. Davis v. Parks, 194 So. 613, 614 (Fla. 1939). A judge may not step away from the appearance of neutrality and advocate for either party or interject himself or herself - 30 - into the proceedings. See Williams v. State, 967 So. 2d 735, 750-51 (Fla. 2007). To determine whether the Faretta rights of a defendant have been respected, a court must focus primarily on whether the defendant had a fair opportunity to present his or her case in his or her own way. McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 177 (1984). Although a defendant ordinarily will lack the skill to conduct the trial as neatly and competently as an attorney, this does not circumscribe the right of selfrepresentation. Bowen v. State, 677 So. 2d 863, 866 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), app’d, 698 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1997). At the same time, the authority and power of the trial court to control the courtroom is not to be diminished by the defendant’s exercise of his constitutional right of self-representation. Id. The record reflects that the trial court sought to maintain an orderly courtroom and ensure that Marquardt presented only witnesses with legally relevant testimony. The trial court originally asked Marquardt what witnesses he planned to present during the first day of his defense and asked about their testimony only when the State raised concerns about their relevancy or the admissibility of their testimony. The prosecutor expressed concern that Marquardt intended to present the witnesses in an effort to reinvestigate the case before the jury. Indeed, in one exchange, Marquardt admitted that he did not know what one of his witnesses would say: COURT: Do you really believe that [the proposed witness] is gonna come in here and say he’s the murderer? - 31 - MARQUARDT: Oh, no, I’m just going to question him and see if he was at the murder at the time of the murder and general questions. COURT: Right. Well, that would make [the proposed witness] under Florida law one of the murderers. You believe that he’s going to come in and say that or are you going on a fishing expedition? MARQUARDT: No. Well, I was just going to question him and general questions like that pretty much. I don’t know what he’s going to say on the stand, Your Honor. COURT: Well, then he’s not going to come in here unless you have talked to him and find out what he’s going to say. That’s your job not mine, so. This exchange demonstrates the trial court was concerned that Marquardt sought to conduct discovery on the witness stand. Shortly thereafter, in response to an explanation by Marquardt of the testimony of another witness, the trial court stated: But I guess what I’m trying to let you know but I can—there’s two things I’m trying to avoid. One, and this is not picking on you in any way. I do not want a case of this serious nature to be turned into a circus, and that’s quite frankly what could happen. I’m stepping past what I should as a neutral person to be telling you things that in a way are protecting you from making certain mistakes, but I’ve mentioned them. And 98.9 percent of what you’ve told me is not going to be admissible from this individual. And you need to understand that this person comes in here and testifies, I’m going to hold you to that standard, and if you—as I might have to do to a lawyer, if you step out of that, this is not meant to threaten you, then there may have to be some statement in front of the jury as to what you’re doing. That’s not going to create a great appellate issue. And quite frankly, I have a lot of defense attorneys come in and think they can do something bizarre in court and get some reaction from the judge that creates their - 32 - great, great appellate issue. And this was something that was upsetting me. It’s taught in seminars in this state, and it’s wrong. It’s horribly wrong and it’s part of the problem with the attorneys in this state. They don’t understand that is horribly wrong, and I can go into a lecture about what’s going on there, but nonetheless, if he comes on the stand and your questions are not correct, if foundation is not established, or if it calls for what would be a hearsay answer, and I do understand that the old saying is what questions can you ask and are not objected to. But if they’re objected to, they’ll be ruled on. Unless you hear overruled, that would be the end of it. And hopefully that’s explanatory enough to say you can have him here, but I don’t know what you’re going to get out of that. That’ll be your own—we’re not just going to keep calling people in here and send them right back out the door because questions are not correct. At some point, I will stop and again, we’ll have to send the jury home or let them out and have further discussion on that. That is not meant to be threatening in any way. That’s just to let you know how these cases work in Florida. Again, this demonstrates that the trial court sought to ensure that the trial proceeded in an orderly fashion, and also that Marquardt understood that if the State objected, then some testimony he sought to present might not be admissible. Thus, we conclude that the request of the trial court that Marquardt provide a list of his witnesses and explain their relevance was not an attempt by the trial court to interject itself into the proceedings. Despite concerns that Marquardt may not be able to elicit admissible testimony from the witnesses, the trial court did not prevent Marquardt from presenting any witnesses, and Marquardt was allowed to develop his defense in his own way. Additionally, this discussion took place outside the presence of the jury and, therefore, did not taint the jury’s perception of Marquardt’s defense. Thus, because the trial court did not depart from its neutral - 33 - role or impede Marquardt’s right to self-representation, and the jury was not exposed to these discussions, there is no way they impacted the verdict. Accordingly, we hold that no fundamental error occurred. Marquardt also asserts that a comment made by the trial court while Marquardt listed his witnesses created a threatening atmosphere. The trial court made the following statement: Well, my concern with these folks is it looks like, and I hate to do this, and I’m not trying—and I’ll do it outside the presence of the jury, but each one of them will have to be informed of the penalties for perjury, that they fully understand, because there’s too many people that I’ve dealt with in the court system that do not understand. And well, I’m going to ask them just because I believe it was before you came to Hernando County, Mr. Magrino [the prosecutor], that your office got so aggressive on perjury cases in the court, but at one point there was—witnesses were getting arrested right and left that were committing perjury, which is what I think should happen. I mean, if they lie in a court, they should be arrested. And in fact, I would have no problem, they could say maybe someone with a greater mind that mine on legal knowledge may say, that’s not right to have them arrested right there when they lie, but I think it is. If they want to lie on this stand, they should be arrested on this stand. And I’m not doing that threatening, but we’re naming a lot of people here that, at least they’re risking it, and that’s five years. And just for knowledge here in Sumter County, somebody lied twice in this court and they got ten years because that’s two charges. So they’re now serving a ten-year sentence. And it happened to be in a case where they probably hadn’t lied, they wouldn’t have gotten but about the same so it ended up working out, I guess. Marquardt did not object to this statement, and therefore it is also reviewed for fundamental error. See F.B., 852 So. 2d at 229. - 34 - This statement was made outside the presence of the jury and any witnesses. There is no evidence that Marquardt communicated the statement to any of the witnesses, and the trial judge did not in fact warn any of the witnesses presented by Marquardt of the penalties for perjury. As a result, none of the witnesses presented by Marquardt could have been threatened by the statement. Additionally, the trial court did not prevent Marquardt from presenting any of his witnesses. Therefore, there is no evidence in the record that this statement had any effect on the trial or created a threatening atmosphere, let alone reached down into the validity of the trial. Accordingly, we hold that no fundamental error occurred.