Opinion ID: 1085639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Manuel’s Revocation Hearing and Request to

Text: Proceed Pro Se On June 11, 2012, the District Court issued a warrant for Manuel’s arrest and signed a petition seeking revocation of supervised release. At a preliminary hearing on June 15, 2012, Manuel stipulated to probable cause and detention pending his final revocation hearing. The District Court held an initial revocation hearing on July 26, 2012. At this hearing, the government presented evidence of Manuel’s violations of 7 the conditions of supervised release, including testimony by Manuel’s probation officer and testimony by Williams and her mother about Manuel’s efforts to solicit Williams’ participation in the Women’s Opportunity Organization and NEMA Financial Empowerment Association. After these witnesses were cross-examined by Manuel’s counsel, Regina Coyne, Esq. (“Ms. Coyne”), and the government had concluded presenting its evidence, Manuel informed the District Court that he no longer wanted to be represented by Ms. Coyne and instead wished to proceed pro se. The District Court engaged Manuel in the following colloquy about his request, during which the Court questioned Manuel about, among other things, his educational background and lack of familiarity with court rules, his reasons for wanting to represent himself, and the strategic disadvantages of proceeding pro se: THE COURT: So, sir, how old are you? THE DEFENDANT: I am fifty-four years old. THE COURT: And how far did you go in school? THE DEFENDANT: Four years of college. 8 THE COURT: And where did you go to college? THE DEFENDANT: Indiana University, Wilmington [sic], Indiana. THE COURT: You need to speak louder. So you completed your academic program but if I remember correctly, since you had an outstanding tuition bill, you didn’t get your degree, is that correct? THE DEFENDANT: Degree, yes. Thank you. THE COURT: Do you have any drugs or alcohol in your system today? THE DEFENDANT: No, I do not. THE COURT: And do you have any mental health problems today or have you had any in the past? THE DEFENDANT: No, I do not. THE COURT: And tell me what you got your degree in? THE DEFENDANT: Business administration and management. 9 THE COURT: All right. So you did not go to any post-grad -- or post-graduate program of any sort, is that correct? THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. THE COURT: And -- am I correct, is that -- THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And it would be fair to say that you do not have any legal training, is that also correct? THE DEFENDANT: That is correct. THE COURT: It would be fair to say that you haven’t gone to law school? THE DEFENDANT: That is correct. THE COURT: So you obviously understand this is a court of law with very clear and established rules and procedures -- THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: -- correct? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And you’re one who 10 does not have legal training. You would be bound by the rules and the procedures, do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: There may be certain things that you want to say that could be useful. But because you’re not legally trained, you wouldn’t think of them, right? So you may miss things because you’re not legally trained. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do. THE COURT: There may be objections to some of the government’s questions. And because you’re not legally trained, you might not be able to know to object. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do. THE COURT: All right. But if you -- you, of course, have the absolute right to represent yourself if that’s your wise and informed choice. You understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do. THE COURT: But if you represent 11 yourself, you would be the lawyer. She would serve only in a back-up capacity. There wouldn’t be any switching back and forth. Your representation would have to be total and complete. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: You understand everything I have said to you about this? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do. THE COURT: Do you have any questions about any of it? THE DEFENDANT: No. Just apologize beforehand if I make any errors. THE COURT: Well, if you make errors, they’re yours. THE DEFENDANT: Okay. THE COURT: Right? Because I would advise you -- THE DEFENDANT: Well, but -- THE COURT: Excuse me. I would advise you to keep your lawyer. That’s what I would advise you. I have not seen ever a 12 defendant who’s benefitted himself by self- representing. Ever. May you be the first, but I doubt it. I would advise you to keep your lawyer. So why do you want to get rid of her? THE DEFENDANT: Sir, because, first of all, I believe that there have been certain due process and procedural errors in this entire venue with respect to my sentencing, with respect to the documentation that I received from the probation officer, with respect to my disposition, the amount of imprisonment time, the amount of supervised release time that I had, the allegations concerning -- I was placed in a halfway house because of suspicion of doing business when it was for -- I agreed to modification because of drug use. There has been no -- THE COURT: Sir, I have an entire file - - THE DEFENDANT: Sure. THE COURT: -- for you even though this is a case transferred from Virginia. I probably have eight or ten reports from the probation department. 13 THE DEFENDANT: Okay. THE COURT: And so, I am very familiar with – and I can measure independently what Mr. Watts tells me. But you’re explaining to me why you do not want to be represented by Ms. Coyne. So tell me why you don’t want to be represented by her. THE DEFENDANT: Because, number one, I believe that I should be able to confront all my witnesses. And her speaking on behalf of her daughter, even though that’s her daughter, I don’t believe that that’s in my best interest. Number two - - THE COURT: We’re not in a trial proceeding. This is a revocation hearing. And hearsay is admissible and you would know it if you were a lawyer. THE DEFENDANT: Well -- THE COURT: Hearsay is admissible. And then, secondly, there’s a question of weight, right -- THE DEFENDANT: Correct. 14 THE COURT: -- that I would assume to the evidence. And this is the disadvantage you have because you’re not a lawyer. THE DEFENDANT: Right. Yes. I understand hearsay is admissible but also I have the right to confront an adverse witnesses [sic] against me, sir. And just like she -- THE COURT: Your right to confrontation applies to revocation proceedings in the same way that it applies to a trial, yes or no? Don’t know, do you. THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, based on Morrissey v. Brewer, it says yes – yes, it is. And I have the case right here. THE COURT: Give me the facts in Morrissey. That’s from the ‘60s, right? THE DEFENDANT: No. It’s from ’72. THE COURT: ‘70s. I meant it was old. And if you’re going to read from the document that you submitted, I guess it was last week, I’ve already read that. THE DEFENDANT: No. No. I was going to -- 15 THE COURT: You’re going to read from something else? THE DEFENDANT: I’m sorry? THE COURT: You’re going to read from something else? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. I’m going to read from the exact case itself, Morrissey v. Brewer. THE COURT: Are you going to read from Morrissey? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. I don’t need you to read Morrissey to me. THE DEFENDANT: Well, I was just going to read the part about what due process and what respect to supervised release revocation hearings, just that one part -- THE COURT: Okay. THE DEFENDANT: -- about being able to confront adverse witnesses. THE COURT: Fine. Go ahead. Read 16 what you want to read. THE DEFENDANT: If you’ll bear with me. (Pause) THE DEFENDANT: Okay. It says basically with respect to preliminary -- MS. COYNE: You’ve got the wrong one. THE DEFENDANT: Okay. “On request of the parolee, a person who has given adverse information on which parole revocation is to be based is to be made available for questioning in his presence.” THE COURT: So why else do you want to terminate her as your lawyer? THE DEFENDANT: Well, sir -- THE COURT: Well, you know what? I could just tell you right now. Ms. Williams, the daughter, I am disregarding all of her information. All right? THE DEFENDANT: Okay. THE COURT: I am not accepting it for 17 the truth of the matter. I’m only accepting it as the route that this case -- THE DEFENDANT: Oka. [sic] THE COURT: -- traveled to get in front of me. THE DEFENDANT: Okay. THE COURT: So go ahead. What else do you want to say? THE DEFENDANT: Well, understanding exactly what you said, the witness that is here, she basically stated in the documentation that I received from probation that she met me outside of a convenience store soliciting. THE COURT: Sir, I can’t talk you out of self-representing. Is that where we’re going? You want to represent yourself? THE DEFENDANT: Well, I want certain questions to be -- THE COURT: Yes or no? Do you want to represent -- THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Do you want her to serve in a backup capacity? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do. THE COURT: All right. Any other questions either of the lawyers think I need to ask? MS. CRAWLEY: No, Your Honor. MS. COYNE: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: You’ve done a lot of foolish type things in your life, sir. This might be the most foolish you’ve ever done. That’s my advice to you. But if you want to do it, I don’t have legal authority to stop you. All right. Transcript of Hearing Regarding Violation of Supervised Release, Appendix 55–62. The District Court granted Manuel’s motion to proceed pro se and allowed him to retain Ms. Coyne as standby counsel. Manuel represented himself for the remainder of the July 26 hearing and, at the close of the hearing, requested a continuance in order to serve subpoenas and present additional witnesses. The Court granted the request. At an adjourned revocation hearing on August 27, 2012, Manuel requested, and was granted, another 19 continuance of sixty days. On November 5, 2012, the District Court held a third revocation hearing, at which Manuel presented witness testimony from his substance abuse therapist and employees of the residential reentry center. At the conclusion of the November 5th revocation hearing, the District Court found Manuel in violation of his supervised release and imposed the statutory maximum sentence of sixteen months on each of the two terms of release, to be served consecutively, for a total sentence of thirty-two months. This timely appeal followed. 2