Opinion ID: 522975
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timely Assertion of Pro Se Right

Text: 75 A motion to proceed pro se is timely if made before the jury is impaneled, unless it is shown to be a tactic to secure delay. Fritz, 682 F.2d at 784. Here, the defendants indicated at the status conference a week before the first trial date that they would like to represent themselves. Speaking through Todd Flewitt, they indicated that they thought their attorneys were incompetent, that the attorneys were reluctant to take the case to trial and were not prepared. They further stated that their attorneys told them if they went to trial they were fairly sure they would be found guilty. The attorneys stated they were ready to go to trial. The trial judge refused to give them different counsel. 76 I find that your reasons for not cooperating with counsel are inadequate. The reasons expressed are merely that the attorney has given you [sic] their frank evaluation of the case which is that you are likely to be convicted.... That is what I would expect an attorney to do and not to give overly optimistic advice to their client. 77 So I find that you made no showing as to any reason why I should dismiss these attorneys. They are competent lawyers, good lawyers. They have handled many cases, and they can handle yours as well. 78 Although you have a right to represent yourself, that right is not absolute and you are not prepared at this time to take over the representation of yourself. 79 A week later, on April 23, 1985, which was to be the morning of the trial, the defendants filed a motion for a continuance and discharge of counsel. They complained in the motion they were subject to trial by ordeal, but they did not recite any facts to support that claim. They complained about ineffective representation by counsel without alleging any particular facts. The court stated that because these are court appointed attorneys that will have to be paid by the government ... I will not permit you to pick and choose your own attorney that will be appointed at public expense without a good reason for it, and I haven't seen a good reason yet. Defendants recited a litany of alleged abuses by their counsel. These facts were disputed by the defendants' counsel. The court said, I find that the attorneys were competent attorneys, they are able to handle the case and being prevented from doing so by the defendants. So I am not going to appoint other counsel. The court then allowed defendants to proceed pro se and set a new trial date of July 23, 1985. Defendants agreed to this date which gave them ninety days to prepare their case for trial. 80 On the eve of the July trial date, the defendants filed their motion to disqualify the judge and asserted they had not properly waived counsel. At this point, the district court changed the trial date for a third time to October 8, 1985. On the eve of that trial date, five months after the district court granted defendants the right to proceed pro se, they had neither started or completed any trial preparation, had not used their advisory counsel or their investigator, and wanted more time to conduct discovery. The district court properly revoked their pro se status as he felt they were using it to delay the trial, and were not using the resources they were given to proceed with their case.