Opinion ID: 475859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Failure to Conduct an Indigency Inquiry

Text: 122 The indigency issue is troublesome. On the one hand, it seems clear that defendant was indigent. Yet, he expressly stated that he did not want a public defender, and he waived his right to a court-appointed counsel. Therefore, if the Faretta safeguards had been satisfied, this issue would be insignificant. Under the circumstances of this case, however, I believe that an indigency inquiry should have been conducted, because the indigency question is intricately interrelated with the Faretta issue. 123
124 In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), the Court held that a criminal defendant had a right to self-representation; however, the Court discussed special measures which would protect an accused. For example, the Court hinted that a trial judge could prevent many problems by appointing a qualified lawyer to act as a standby counsel. Id. at 834-35 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. at 2541 n. 46 (Of course, a State may--even over objection by the accused--appoint a 'standby counsel' to aid the accused if and when the accused requests help.). Justice Burger further emphasized this protective measure in his dissent. Id. at 846 n. 7, 95 S.Ct. at 2529 n. 7. 4 The importance of the standby counsel is further enhanced when one recognizes that a defendant may waive his right to self-representation if he later decides to act as co-counsel, Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F.2d 803, 809 (11th Cir.1984), or if he abandons his initial request, Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607, 611 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc ). 125 Because the court failed to determine that defendant was indigent, no standby counsel was appointed. Thus, defendant had no opportunity to request the assistance of counsel during the trial. In effect, the trial court prevented any subsequent waiver of defendant's right to self-representation. 126 In this case, the absence of a standby counsel was significant. On the second day of trial, as the complexity of the case became apparent, defendant said, I have to get a lawyer. Later, defendant requested additional time to prepare his closing argument. He said, I found out it's very complex. Under these circumstances, it is apparent that defendant wanted the assistance of counsel once the trial began. 127
128 The majority concludes that the trial judge made an implicit finding of fact that defendant understood the meaning of the term indigency and that this conclusion was not clearly erroneous. I cannot agree. The record conclusively establishes that defendant misunderstood the term. 129 The most poignant fact, of course, is that when a hearing was finally held, defendant was found to be indigent. Moreover, the state does not dispute the fact that defendant was indigent and unable to afford counsel at the time of trial. Additionally, several attorneys informed the court that defendant was indigent. 5 Finally, defendant expressly indicated that he had a liquidity problem. Prior to trial, he stated that he was trying to raise the necessary funds by selling stock. Later, during his sentencing hearing, he said, Is liquidity a ground, your honor, then I would like an attorney. 6