Opinion ID: 3015108
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pazden’s Request.

Text: Here, Pazden argues that he “merely bowed to the inevitable” when he “opted to represent himself at the trial of this complex, 133-count indictment,” because he was confronted with “the unconstitutional dilemma of either representing himself or proceeding to trial with assigned counsel who admitted being unprepared and unfamiliar with the record.” Therefore, according to Pazden, his decision to waive counsel and represent himself was not “voluntary in the constitutional sense.” 12 As we noted above, Pazden’s court-appointed attorney, Ms. Bartos, stated several times on the record that she could not be prepared to go to trial given the trial date. Specifically, Ms. Bartos contended that she was hampered by (1) the prosecution’s refusal to furnish timely discovery; (2) the prosecution’s furnishing of discovery in a piecemeal fashion and (3) her inability to interview all 560 witnesses on the witness list 12 Pazden challenges only the voluntariness of his waiver, not whether his waiver was knowing and intelligent. 25 before trial was to begin.13 In a letter to the trial court dated January 29, 1996, Ms. Bartos explained that she would be requesting a postponement of the trial date because, inter alia, [o]n January 26, 1996, the Prosecutor’s Office, in the guise of delivering discovery relevant to the new Indictment . . . delivered to defense counsel a packet of discovery . . . Items 13 through 37 obviously relate to [the old Indictment] and, while presumably in the possession of the Prosecutor during the duration of these proceedings, have only now been delivered to defense counsel on January 26, 1996 – some 18 days 13 Ms. Bartos’s co-counsel, Mr. Smith, explained to the state trial court that, “the number of witnesses that will be called by the defense may range anywhere to 50 to 150 . . . Those witnesses have . . . outstanding documents . . . we need to interview those witnesses . . . It’s my opinion that . . . we will not be ready to try this case on February 13.” Mr. Smith added, “[t]here are a number of outstanding requests for discovery . . . There are thousands of documents to be reviewed and I just don’t see how, even with two attorneys working on this case it could be ready by the 13 th .” App. 262. 26 prior to the date scheduled for trial. More importantly, a review of the information contained in Items 13 and 33 raise crucial issues concerning the processing and approval of the Public Offering Statement by the Department of Community Affairs and alert the defense to the existence of certain documents. These documents are not a portion of the discovery supplied by the Prosecutor’s Office and are not in the possession of the defense. Having been alerted by this discovery provided by the Prosec u tor’s O ffice of the importance of these documents, defense counsel would not be acting in the best interest of the client nor providing able and effective counsel in proceeding to trial at this time. App. 252. In response to this discovery, Ms. Bartos issued a subpoena to obtain all the files of the Department of Community Affairs that pertained to the registration and approval of the Riverview Village project. She thereafter learned from an employee of Community Affairs that some of the documents were in the possession of the Office of the Attorney General; 27 therefore, Community Affairs could not provide them to the defense at that time. Ms. Bartos also explained to the state trial court that the “documents are critical to the defense . . . not only in the preparation of the defense, but their availability is essential in the cross-examination of the States’ witnesses.” App. 252. Additionally, Ms. Bartos explained to the court that, because the witness list consisted of 560 names, “it would have been virtually impossible for [her] to contact, to interview, to evaluate in assessing those witnesses appearing in that very, very short period of time.” 14 App. 116-17. Nevertheless, the court denied Ms. Bartos’s request for a continuance. Consequently, believing that he was then better prepared for trial than Ms. Bartos, Pazden “chose to” represent himself and proceed to trial with Ms. Bartos acting as stand-by counsel. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Von Moltke, the trial court conducted an inquiry to “decide whether [Pazden] was bowing to the inevitable or voluntarily and affirmatively waiving his right to counsel.” See Von Moltke, 332 U.S. at 722; Salemo, 61 F.3d at 220. That colloquy is set forth at length above. See pp 6-8, supra. Upon concluding this colloquy, the court found, “with regard to [Pazden’s] choice to represent himself, I’m satisfied that this is something that is 14 We recognize that one of the reasons Ms. Bartos was left with so little time to interview the potential witnesses was Pazden’s failure to supply her with the witness list until January, 1996. However, as already noted, Ms. Bartos’s request for a continuance was based on factors that were primarily beyond her, or Pazden’s, control. 28 his voluntary choice.”