Opinion ID: 1867526
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Self-Representation Request

Text: On August 3, 2000, while his trial was underway, Blom made a request to represent himself. This request, as clarified during questioning by the district court, was more in the nature of a request to remove his defense counsel than to represent himself. Even though the court told Blom that a request to represent himself was not a request to allow different counsel to represent you, Blom stated that his motion was not to represent himself, but that he would just rather do without legal attorney. When asked his reasons for wanting to represent himself, Blom asserted that his counsel were giving him a snow job, were minimizing his defense, and were not bringing out vital parts of his defense. Blom concluded by saying he wanted to go on the record saying he could prove without a doubt that his attorneys were not defending him 100 percent. Upon receiving Blom's request, the district court first verified that Blom understood that he had the right to be represented by counsel and that if he chose to represent himself he would be held to the same standard as if he were an attorney. The court informed Blom that while he would be allowed to have counsel remain in the courtroom on a standby basis, he would have to prepare, examine, and cross-examine witnesses himself. The court told Blom first-degree murder is punishable by life imprisonment, alibi and other defenses were available, he could not make the motion to represent himself for purposes of delay, and he could not request substitute defense counsel at the same time he was asking to represent himself. The court also sought to clarify Blom's request to represent himself by asking Blom about it in three different ways, but each time Blom's response was equivocal. A few moments after engaging in the foregoing exchange with the district court, Blom said the trial had been going pretty good in some areas, but I think there have been too many areas that haven't been touched. The court then explained to him that his counsel probably did not address those issues because counsel understood from their legal training that they could not. The court noted Blom's dissatisfaction, but found the motion untimely and concluded that self-representation would result in disruption and undue delay. As to the adequacy of Blom's representation, the court concluded quite honestly, I would say [your counsel] have been fighting zealously, which has been evidenced by the number of rulings and motions and requests that I have had to rule on in these proceedings.