Opinion ID: 550005
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Self Representation/Appointment of New Counsel Issue

Text: 16 In his final claim for relief, Scott asserts that he was denied his right to self-representation and, at the same time, he was denied the appointment of new counsel. These claims are inconsistent. While Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), established the constitutional right of self-representation, that right is not consistent with the insistence on the right to counsel: 17 The right to defend pro se and the right to counsel have been aptly described as two faces of the same coin, in that the waiver of one right constitutes a correlative assertion of the other. While it may be within the discretion of a District Court to permit both a criminal defendant and his attorney to conduct different phases of the defense in a criminal trial, for purposes of determining whether there has been a deprivation of constitutional rights a criminal defendant cannot logically waive or assert both rights. The defendant must make a choice, and he should not be permitted to manipulate his choice so that he can claim reversible error on appeal no matter which alternative he apparently chose in the District Court. 18 United States v. Conder, 423 F.2d 904, 908 (6th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 958 (1970), cited in United States v. Mosley, 810 F.2d 93, 97 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 841 (1987). 19 Scott stated to the trial court on the morning set for trial: 20 I would like to waive counsel, sir. My lawyer wasn't on my best interests. He already said I was going to be found guilty. He told me. 21 ............................................................. 22 ................... 23