Opinion ID: 1277296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Alleged Exclusion From Sidebar Conferences

Text: Gunther assigns as error that the trial court, after allowing him to proceed as his own counsel, excluded him from proceedings such as sidebar conferences. The record indicates that after opening statements, a sidebar conference was held outside the presence of the jury, but the record does not reflect what took place during that sidebar. The most that can be said is that the sidebar was requested by standby counsel, as opposed to Gunther. The record shows that Gunther actively participated, along with standby counsel, in other sidebar conferences held outside the jury's presence. [11] In order to determine whether a defendant's self-representation rights have been respected, the primary focus must be on whether the defendant had a fair chance to present his case in his own way. McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 177, 104 S. Ct. 944, 79 L. Ed. 2d 122 (1984). The U.S. Supreme Court has imposed two limits on the extent of standby counsel's unsolicited participation in a trial. First, the pro se defendant is entitled to preserve actual control over the case he chooses to present to the jury. McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 178. Second, participation by standby counsel without the defendant's consent should not be allowed to destroy the jury's perception that the defendant is representing himself. Id. There is no indication in the record that standby counsel's request for a sidebar conference destroyed the jury's perception that Gunther was representing himself. In addition, the record clearly demonstrates that although standby counsel was present and advised Gunther at times during the trial, Gunther was allowed to control the organization and content of his own defense, make his own motions, argue points of law, participate in voir dire, question witnesses, and address the court and the jury at appropriate points in the trial.