Opinion ID: 151635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Bankoff's Requests to Proceed Pro Se

Text: On several occasions prior to trial, Bankoff told the District Court that he wished to represent himself during trial. He reiterated this request during a final pretrial hearing in March 2008. The Court conducted an extensive colloquy with Bankoff (in accordance with our precedent, see United States v. Peppers, 302 F.3d 120 (3d Cir.2002)), advised him of the risks of representing himself, and strongly advised him against doing so. It also advised Bankoff that his counsel would remain as standby counsel (and would be available to take over the trial if Bankoff changed his mind), but stressed that he would not be allowed to switch back and forth with counsel during trial. At the end of this colloquy, the Court granted Bankoff's request to proceed pro se. Before the final pretrial conference concluded, Bankoff changed his mind. During a conversation regarding jury instructions, the District Court again suggested that it was a bad idea for Bankoff to represent himself: [The Court]: I don't think that, with the limited education that you have of a GEDbut you're a bright fellow, you know, and II want to state that on the record. You have a good vocabulary. You're articulate. You understand my questions. And, however bright you are, you're justI just don't think you're prepared to defend yourself as well as your lawyers can. [Bankoff]: I think you're right, Your Honor. [The Court]: All right. [Bankoff]: I think II changed my mind. I think II think I [The Court]: Well, you don't have to make a decision today. You ought to sleep on this and talk to your lawyer some more. [Bankoff]: Well, I spoke to them, and I was thinking about it forfor a while, and II thinkI think that they're  they're[my attorney] Ms. Rimmer did very well today. I think she did real good. [My other attorney,] Mr. McHugh, sometimes, he did good; sometimes, there was a couple of things thatI think I'llI'll stick with my team, Your Honor. I changed my mind, and I'm sorry to trouble the Court with these, you know, ups and downs [The Court]: All right. [Bankoff]:  fluctuations, whatever Despite Bankoff's statements that he no longer wished to proceed pro se, the Court informed him that if he want[ed] to represent [himself] next Monday [the first day of trial], [it would] let [him] do it, but ... it's a very bad idea. Trial began the following Monday, and neither Bankoff nor his counsel raised the issue of self-representation prior to jury selection or opening statements. However, Bankoff repeatedly interrupted the prosecutor's opening statement with argumentative objections, and, after the prosecutor concluded, Bankoff demanded to give the opening statement for the defense. The Court informed Bankoff that it would not permit him to represent himself that day, but would address his objections at the end of the day (after the jury had been released). One witness for the Government (Sphabmixy) testified that day, and Bankoff's counsel conducted the cross-examination. After the jury was dismissed, the District Court held an on-the-record conference with the parties. Bankoff denied he had ever withdrawn his request to proceed pro se, and complained that he had not been permitted to cross-examine Sphabmixy. The Court again advised Bankoff that he could not have it both ways, and asked him if he wanted to represent himself for the rest of trial. Bankoff declared that it was too late, and that he was just gonna have to let [his attorney] go forward from now. But on Tuesday morning Bankoff again demanded to proceed pro se. The District Court ruled that his counsel would finish the cross-examination of Sphabmixy. Once cross was completed, however, the Court permitted Bankoff to represent himself. He cross-examined the Government's remaining witnesses (Tonik, Robinson, and Federal Protective Services Special Agent Jesse Kunkle), and the Court also allowed Bankoff to cross-examine Sphabmixy after the Government rested. Bankoff chose to present a defense, calling his father and a psychiatrist to testify on his behalf. Bankoff's father was unable to answer some of his son's questions after becoming emotional, and the District Courtwith Bankoff's consentpermitted standby counsel to finish the direct examination. At the close of trial, Bankoff's counsel gave the closing statement for the defense after Bankoff was removed from the courtroom following an angry, profane, and lengthy outburst (which occurred outside of the jury's presence). The District Court informed the jury that Bankoff had elected by his words and conduct to not be present for the conclusion of summations. The Court nonetheless took care to instruct the jury that it was not to use Bankoff's words or his conduct during the trial for any purpose in [its] deliberations. As noted, Bankoff was convicted on two of the three counts and the District Court overturned one of them, leaving only the conviction for threatening Tonik (Count Two). The Court then sentenced Bankoff to 60 months' imprisonment, which represented a nine-month upward variance from the advisory Guidelines range of 41-51 months. This timely appeal followed. [3]