Opinion ID: 2623278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Abuse of process and risk of disruption

Text: The district court also concluded that Vanisi was abusing the right of self-representation by disrupting the judicial process and inferred from Vanisi's past conduct that he presented a danger of disrupting the trial. The United States Supreme Court has stated that an accused has the right to conduct his own defense provided that he is able and willing to abide by rules of procedure and courtroom protocol. [10] The right of self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law. [11] This court has stated that in considering a request for self-representation, a defendant's pretrial activity is relevant if it indicates that he or she will be disruptive in the courtroom. [12] Since the district court is in a better position to observe a defendant's demeanor and conduct, this court will not substitute its own evaluation for the district court's personal observations and impressions. [13] We conclude that the district court made appropriate and sufficient findings to support a conclusion that Vanisi was unable or unwilling to abide by rules of procedure and court-room protocol. The court noted that Vanisi had interrupted prior hearings by blurt[ing] out statements in a loud voice. Vanisi also talked while others were speaking in court, stood up and engaged in unsettling rocking motions, and repeated himself over and over. Vanisi spoke out loud to himself in such a manner that it was at times difficult to determine if he was speaking for his own benefit or to the courtroom audience or the court. At the self-representation canvass, Vanisi exhibited difficulty in processing information and took an extremely lengthy period of time to respond to many of the court's questions, the courtroom proceedings stopping for two to three minutes at times while he pondered his answer. At times, Vanisi asked the court to repeat the same question many times before answering and even refused to answer a question that he believed to be an incomplete sentence. Vanisi frequently asked the district court questions instead of answering the court's questions. At one hearing, Vanisi continued to question the district court after the court indicated that Vanisi should address his counsel. The district court also noted its concern with Vanisi's history of aggressive and disruptive behavior while at the Nevada State Prison. We conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in finding that Vanisi had shown himself unable or unwilling to abide by rules of procedure and courtroom protocol.