Opinion ID: 2270912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Davis' Ake Claims

Text: Mr. Davis was deemed indigent, and public defenders were appointed to represent him. Beginning in June 2007 and extending into July 2008, Mr. Davis filed numerous motions requesting the court to compel his counsel to conduct their legal strategy in the way he preferred or permit him to represent himself and provide him various resources. On June 20, 2007, Mr. Davis filed a motion to be my own lawyer. In that motion, Mr. Davis requested the court to appoint someone to assist in investigating facts, deposing witnesses, gathering evidence, and to give [him] the means to represent himself. On June 25, 2007, Mr. Davis filed a motion stating, If I can not have [counsel compelled to prepare the case according to Mr. Davis' instructions], then if it is true and I can be the so-called lawyer, and have access to assistance in doing the above then I want to do that and have access to law library, people to help investigate for me, witnesses, and help I will need for trial. Mr. Davis filed an additional motion the next day making similar conditional requests. The following day, Mr. Davis filed two such motions. The first asked for court to appoint investigator, legal assistant to assist defendant in defending himself and investigating facts of the case, and for the court to appoint someone to help with legal research and in preparing his defense and for access to a VCR and unspecified tapes of evidence that will be used in a suppression hearing and at trial. Mr. Davis did not state what he intended his defense to be; he said only that it would require experts in medical drugs. The second motion asked the court to order Mr. Davis' attorneys to do certain things or make Defendant his own lawyer and give him the help needed to find facts, investigate constitutional violations, secure evidence and prepair [ sic ] a very complex defence [ sic ]. He filed an additional motion July 10, 2007, in which he conceded that he already had some access to a law library but asked (as he previously had done) for more library access and for a right to 30 photocopies per hour if needed and a lawyer to assist [Mr. Davis] in representing [him]self and someone to help ... investigate. The court addressed these various motions at an October 10, 2007 hearing. Because Mr. Davis variously sought to represent himself and for the court to order counsel to continue representing him but to do so according to his legal strategy rather than that of counsel, the court first sought to clarify what relief Mr. Davis really wanted. Mr. Davis at first responded, I'll do it myself, I'll represent myself. He said he had thought it over and discussed it with his attorneys, that he was not intoxicated, could read and write English, and that no one was forcing him to decide to represent himself. The court asked Mr. Davis if he knew the rules of evidence and Mr. Davis said he would try to learn it. The court continued, explaining that, without the assistance of counsel, Mr. Davis' pretrial options would be limited. The court remarked that the public defender's office has money to send out investigators, they have money to take depositions for records, things of that nature. The exchange continued: Court: And do you understand that there's no absolute right in a lot of those things under the law for you to have? In other words, you would have to come up with the money for that. Do you understand that? Mr. Davis: For like a, to talk to witnesses? Court: Exactly. Do you understand that? Mr. Davis: So, basically, I couldn't talk to witnesses or nothing? Court: Well, there's certain things about witnesses where money is required, to send out investigators, to take a deposition of certain records that need to be taken or something. Do you understand that, obviously, those things cost money and you would have to obviously come up with that money? Mr. Davis: No. That's one of the reasons I'm doing this, is because I was wanting this stuff done. And I thought that I could maybe do it myself, that I could question, you know, like, the police officers or witnesses in my case and prepare and learn, you know, what they was going to testify to and remembered. Court: Do you understand that that takes money to do that? Do you understand that when the public defender is taking depositions, they're paying for those depositions? Do you understand that? Mr. Davis: I believed that you could, you know, help me, appoint someone, like, to investigate where I can't go talk to people and locate people. Court: I'm telling you up front, you understand, I have no power to do that. I can't force people to work for free. Do you understand that? Mr. Davis: Yes. After this exchange, the court continued inquiring as to whether Mr. Davis wished to represent himself. After some further discussion, Mr. Davis decided to remain represented by appointed counsel. Thereafter, however, he periodically filed additional motions asking that he be allowed to represent himself for the reasons stated previously and stating that his counsel would not prepare the case in the way he desired. He always made these requests conditional on receiving things such as funding generally for pretrial investigations, defense and trial preparation, expert witnesses, and related expenses, as well as cost for investigator to locate defense witnesses, secure evidences [ sic ], locate evidence, research defense issues and an investigator to locate witnesses, secure testimony and locate and secure physical evidence. These motions also stated that Mr. Davis wanted the court to provide funding for copies of documents [and] discovery motions, [which] will be needed by defendant at great cost. Mr. Davis stated that he will not be able to enter any evidence at a trial without funds to gather evidence and that he would need telephone access because [h]undreds of witnesses by the state have to have their testimony reviewed and some will need to be contacted. He also requested specific items such as copy photos as exhibits; funds for transcripts; funds for photocopies in the law library; law books not in the law library; and funds to have photos copied or made off of D.V.D. Mr. Davis did not explain to what issues these requests related or whether they were necessary to present evidence about a significant issue in his case or if, instead, they were just general resources he wanted to have available as he might need them. On July 7, 2008, the same day voir dire examination for Mr. Davis' trial began, he filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and stated for the first time that if defendant had the ability he would have contacted expert witnesses ... on (Dissociative Identity Disorder) (DID) and the side effects of Lexapro and Paxil and other (4) four medications defendant was prescribed during the time relating to the charges. Mr. Davis also stated that he would call witnesses who would testify to the (DID) and the fact that defendant had this disorder all his life. Mr. Davis would also contact and call to court witnesses at his church who seen [ sic ] the (personality changes) (DID). On July 17, 2008, the trial court held a hearing to address Mr. Davis' latter motions. The court stated that it already had conducted a lengthy hearing on the matter of removing Mr. Davis' counsel. Mr. Davis said he was under the understanding that [he] had th[e] right, to represent [him]self and to have funds to do that. The court asked whether there was any other thing Mr. Davis wanted to say [o]n representing [him]self Mr. Davis did not then make a record of what evidence he wanted to put on or what he needed the funds for or whether there was evidence to support a DID defense sufficient to justify hiring an expert. Instead, he focused on obtaining copies of prior motions he had filed and other collateral matters. The jury began hearing guilt-phase evidence July 25, 2008. On July 30, 2008, in the middle of trial, Mr. Davis filed his objections for the court, pro se. In that motion Mr. Davis objected to not being allowed to represent myself, not given the means, or funding for basic materials, photo copies, law books, investigator to locate witnesses who would prove defense of (NGRI) (coworkers, friends, family). As stated in prior motions, witnesses who would have testified at suppression hearing to prove the claims of illegal search and seizure, involuntary statements. As stated in my pro se motions, expert witness in regards to involuntary intoxication as stated in the pro se motion. The court overruled this motion.