Opinion ID: 2994211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Avery’s Waiver Of His Sixth Amendment Right

Text: To Counsel In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the Supreme Court found that a criminal defendant is absolutely entitled to waive his right to the assistance of counsel and to proceed pro se when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so. Though he may ultimately conduct his own defense to his detriment, his choice must be honored as long as it is knowing and voluntary. Id. at 834. Although a defendant need not himself have the skill and experience of a lawyer in order [to] competently and intelligently choose self- representation, he should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that ’he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’ Id. at 835, citing Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 (1942). When that is done, the defendant’s decision to proceed pro se will not be disturbed. To determine whether a defendant’s decision to represent himself is knowingly and voluntarily made, we consider (1) whether and to what extent the district court conducted a formal hearing into the defendant’s decision to represent himself, (2) whether there is other evidence in the record that establishes that the defendant understood the disadvantages of self- representation, (3) the background and experience of the defendant, and (4) the context of the defendant’s decision to proceed pro se. Sandles, 23 F.3d at 1126; United States v. Bell, 901 F.2d 574, 577-79 (7th Cir. 1990). If, after making these inquiries, we determine that the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant knowingly and intentionally waived his right to counsel, we will uphold the district court’s decision allowing the defendant to proceed pro se. United States v. Moya-Gomez, 860 F.2d 706, 733 (7th Cir. 1988). Mr. Avery concedes that the District Court did conduct a formal inquiry, on the record. However, he claims that it was perfunctory. To the contrary, the record establishes that Judge Hamilton conducted a thorough and detailed inquiry of Avery. He asked about Avery’s education and experience, eliciting that Avery had attended, but not graduated from, college and had taken courses in business and business law. He asked what Avery had done to prepare to represent himself. Avery responded that he had been reading the laws and cases relevant to the charges against him and that he had prepared several motions he wanted to file in his defense. The judge then queried the defendant about his knowledge of the criminal system, trial practice and his knowledge of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, forcing Avery to admit that he had never seen a trial conducted and that he was not very familiar with either the Federal Rules of Evidence or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Yet, despite acknowledging these insufficiencies, Avery announced his determination to waive counsel and proceed pro se. Judge Hamilton did what he could to try to convince Mr. Avery not to represent himself. He told him the dangers of it, how much better he would be with an experienced criminal defense lawyer and that he would be on his own and that the court could not assist him during trial. Mr. Avery acknowledged all of this, stating that he knew what he was up against and exactly where he was headed. He acknowledged that the rules governing trial procedure were complicated and that people who represent themselves at trial end up with disastrous results 98 percent of the time. Reviewing the evidence before us, we do not believe that the District Court abused its discretion in ruling that Avery’s decision to represent himself at trial was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. Indeed, the defendant said many times that it was. And, where, as here, the decision was made for tactical reasons, we are readily inclined to uphold it. See Bell, 901 F.2d at 579 (defendant’s decision to represent himself based upon his attorney’s unwillingness to present defendant’s requested alibi defense upheld). The decision of the District Court finding Avery’s waiver of counsel knowing and voluntary is therefore affirmed.