Opinion ID: 3020769
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Clear and Unequivocal Waiver

Text: Much as we appreciate the difficult balancing required of district judges in cases like this one, we cannot conclude that Jones clearly and unequivocally waived his right to counsel. To review, Jones stated several times that he only wished to proceed pro se if the Court would not appoint another attorney to replace Rymsza. The Court did not approve new counsel at the outset, and examined Jones on his desire and ability to represent himself. The Court also told Jones that “[t]he only reason we appoint counsel, if you try this case yourself, is that if the situation gets so bad that we no longer can permit you to try it yourself,” standby counsel would step in. The Court informed Jones that standby counsel could not give him legal advice or examine him if he testified.5 5 The District Court took an overly restrictive view of the role of standby counsel in this manner. We have expressly approved arrangements in which standby counsel advises a pro se defendant, makes opening or closing statements, and questions the defendant if he testifies in his own defense. See United States v. McFadden, 630 F.2d 963, 969 & n.12 (3d Cir. 1980); see also United States v. Bertoli, 994 F.2d 1002, 1019 (3d Cir. 1993) (noting that standby counsel “must be available if and when the accused requests help,” “must be ready to step in if the accused wishes to terminate his own representation,” may “explain and enforce the basic rules of courtroom protocol 20 The Court later agreed to appoint a new attorney. Jones asked whether counsel could examine him on the stand if he wished to proceed pro se, and the Court told him no and asked if he would object if the case were listed for trial in October. Jones replied, “No. Your Honor, I would rather proceed pro se, but I would — I would accept that if it was on the October list.” The Court then asked if Jones wanted to proceed pro se “despite the disadvantages of representing yourself . . . than have us appoint new counsel for you,” and Jones replied that he did. The Court considered the matter closed and decided that Jones thereafter could proceed pro se. Particularly since we are to “indulge every reasonable presumption against a waiver of counsel,” Buhl, 233 F.3d at 790, we cannot conclude that Jones clearly and unequivocally wanted to proceed pro se instead of having the Court appoint full counsel. Jones repeatedly asked for full counsel or, if he was to proceed pro se, for standby counsel to advise him and question him if he testified. The District Court understated the role of standby counsel, and mentioned that new counsel could not try the case until October. Jones replied that, although he “would rather proceed pro se,” he would accept new counsel to try the case in October. We believe it is reasonable to presume that Jones was expressing his desire to represent himself with the active assistance of standby counsel, but since the District to the accused,” and serves to “overcome routine obstacles that may hinder effective pro se representation”) 21 Court would not allow that, he would accept the appointment of new counsel to try the case. Instead, the District Court took Jones’ statement to be a request to proceed pro se regardless of the limitations on standby counsel. The trial judge did not, however, pursue this matter by asking additional questions; rather, he simply asked Jones if he wanted to proceed pro se rather than have full counsel appointed. The District Court apparently presumed that Jones’ comment that he “would rather proceed pro se” meant that, despite the limitations the District Court placed on standby counsel, Jones still wanted to represent himself. This choice is not clear from the record, however, and we do not indulge presumptions that support a waiver of counsel. As noted, we think it equally likely that Jones meant he would rather represent himself with the active assistance of standby counsel, but was willing to accept the appointment of full counsel instead. This backdrop does not allow us to conclude that Jones’ waiver was clear and unequivocal.