Opinion ID: 3005910
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of Daniels from Trial

Text: Daniels next challenges his exclusion from trial. While a defendant has a right to be present at every stage of trial, that right is not absolute. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338 342–43 (1970); United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767–68 (7th Cir. 2011). A defendant may impliedly waive his right to attend trial if “after he has been warned by the judge that he will be removed if he continues his disruptive behavior, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom.” Allen, 397 U.S. at 343; Benabe, 654 F.3d at 768 (noting a defendant may waive right to be present either by consent or misconduct). Further, a court dealing with an incorrigible defendant “must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case. No one formula for maintaining the appropriate courtroom atmosphere will be best in all situations.” Allen, 397 U.S. at 343. In this case, prior to trial, even though he was represented by counsel, Daniels began filing pro se documents with the district court claiming he was not subject to the government’s jurisdiction.2 The district court held a hearing to address 2 Daniels’ filings have “the earmarks of the ‘Sovereign Citizens’ movement,” El v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., 710 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2013), (continued...) Nos. 13-2078 & 13-2982 21 Daniels’ filings, at which he asked Daniels if he no longer wanted to be represented by his attorney. Rather than responding, Daniels continued rambling about his status as a security interest holder. After stating he found no reason to replace Daniels’ attorney, the district court told Daniels that he “may attend the trial because that’s his right to attend the trial,” but that “if he demonstrates any indication that he will be disruptive during the trial, the Court will take appropriate action and it could include … barring him from the courtroom if he is disruptive … .” The court further told Daniels that he could only file documents through counsel, but Daniels continued to submit pro se filings again using the boilerplate language of the “sovereign citizen movement.” Then at a status hearing held on August 29, 2012, while the court was addressing the government’s pretrial motions, Daniels raised his hand to speak. The court explained that it does not “entertain questions from defendants who are represented by counsel,” to which Daniels responded, “I’m not represented by him.” The court then asked Daniels’ attorney if he had anything to raise and his attorney replied: “I am not asking to address the Court at this time, Judge.” The district court then said: “There will be no addressing the Court then by 2 (...continued) which, according to the FBI, purports to “believe the government is operating outside of its jurisdiction and generally do not recognize federal, state, or local laws, policies, or governmental regulations.” http://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-SovereignCitizens.pdf. This movement often recruits in prisons. Id. 22 Nos. 13-2078 & 13-2982 defendants unless their lawyer addresses the Court.” After some additional discussion concerning pretrial matters, the district court adjourned the hearing, at which point Daniels yelled twice, “[a]re you denying me my right to speak?” A minute order issued after the hearing stated that Daniels “persisted in his behavior and appeared to refuse to leave the courtroom even after the court indicated that the matter had concluded, at which point the United States Deputy Marshals had to forcibly escort Daniels from the courtroom.” In the minute order, the court “again warned that further disruptions by Daniels during any of the proceedings related to this case, including the trial, may result in his exclusion from the courtroom during trial.” Later during a pretrial conference, the court addressed Daniels’ attorney, stating: Since there were certain incidents that happened previously in this court relating to your client and I made a statement that … if any defendant to that matter, if any party, including a special agent of the FBI acts disruptive, I will remove the person from the courtroom. And as I stated, your client has every right to be in the courtroom. … and I hope he exercises that right and stays in the courtroom. And if he decides that he does not want to be civil in the courtroom and let the procedures take place, then I need to know that right now. Daniels’ attorney replied: “I believe he has a right to be here as the Court stated and I would just leave it at that at this Nos. 13-2078 & 13-2982 23 point.” The district court said: “No, I’m not going to leave it at that,” and had Daniels step up. Daniels refused to be sworn in, again claiming sovereign status. The court told him “during the trial, you’ll have to act in a civil manner. And if any time during the trial you decide to be disruptive, which I hope you don’t, then I will have no alternative but to consider that you have surrendered your right to be in the courtroom during your trial … .” The court asked Daniels if he had “anything to say about that,” to which Daniels responded, “Yes. I conditionally accept your offer that trial is not needed. Pending my ongoing private administrative remedy will make any proceedings along with this trial moot and I do not participate in any of the public benefits which this court have to offer.” After some more nonresponsive babbling, the court asked Daniels: “Do you promise to sit in court without being disruptive?” Daniels again refused to answer. The court tried again, stating: “I just want to make sure that you agree to be not disruptive. And if you could make that promise to me, then I will allow you to be present in the courtroom.” Daniels again refused to respond, so the court told Daniels the he would be excluded from trial, but also informed Daniels’ attorney that, “if your client decides before Monday to agree to tell the Court that he will not be disruptive, then he will be most welcome to do so and be present for the trial in person.” On Monday, when the jury venire was ready, the district court ordered Daniels to appear to revisit the question of whether Daniels would be barred during the trial. The district court began by summarizing Daniels’ past misconduct and then stated that he would have Daniels sworn in and then ask if he 24 Nos. 13-2078 & 13-2982 would promise to behave during the trial. The district court directed Daniels twice to raise his hand to be sworn in, but Daniels did not comply. At that point the Marshal directly asked him “Are you going to raise your hand?” and Daniels said “No.” Daniels then began reading nonsense from a prepared script. This passage is illustrative of the totality of his comments: “I conditionally accept upon proof of claim that as a secure party creditor and a holder in due course have I not tendered payment with the CFO and the clerk of this Court to discharge all debts and liabilities and obligation of the defendant according to the commercial code of this state, UCC 3-603. And upon proof of claim that with no outstanding charges, the defendant, Terry Daniels, I move the Court to enforce the laws of the state to discharge the collateral — namely, myself — and set at liberty now. Are you refusing my tender of payment,