Opinion ID: 78113
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proceedings Regarding Waiver of Counsel

Text: The day after his arrest, Garey appeared in court represented by appointed counsel Scott Huggins. Throughout fifteen months of pretrial proceedings, Huggins continued to represent Garey largely without incident. [2] Then, on the afternoon of Friday, December 3, 2004three days before trial was scheduled to beginGarey filed a pro se Motion to Disqualify Counsel and For Substitute Counsel Based Upon Ongoing Conflicts of Interest and Irreconcilable Differences with Court-Appointed Counsel. The following Monday, the court convened a hearing on the motion. At the motion hearing, Garey argued Huggins had a conflict of interest because Huggins' law office was located in one of the buildings Garey had allegedly threatened to bomb. Finding no actual conflict of interest between Garey and his lawyer, the trial court denied Garey's motion for substitution of counsel. The court then explained Garey's options as follows: You do not have the right to pick who your appointed attorney is, but you do have the right to proceed without an attorney.... [J]ust as you have the Constitutional right to have an attorney appointed for you, if you cannot afford one, you have the Constitutional right to represent yourself. If you choose to represent yourself, or before making that decision, I would caution you that you should make that decision very carefully. There are advantages to having a[sic] attorney trained in the law to represent you, to have someone who is expert on the rules of evidence and the other rules of law applicable to your case. I think it would generally be a disadvantage not to have that experience and expertise available to you. And there are many pitfalls for someone to proceed without an attorney, with regard to various aspects of the trial, including the questioning of witnesses, the decisions on who to put up as witnesses, the decisions on whether to testify or not, decisions regarding impeachment, cross-examination. All of those things, in the court's view, it's very important to have an attorney providing you with legal advice. The trial judge then asked Garey whether he wished to proceed with the representation of [him]self without an attorney. Instead of responding to the question posed by the court, Garey renewed his conflict of interest argument. Again the trial judge explained why no conflict existed, and again the judge asked Garey to indicate whether he wished to proceed to trial with Huggins or wished to represent himself: Court: I am not appointing a new lawyer for you. The question is: Do you want to proceed with Mr. Huggins, or do you want to proceed with representing yourself? Garey: Okay. Like I said Court: That's the only question. Garey: I'm going to say it again. I'm not voluntarily waiving my right to have counsel.     Court: I need an answer. Do you wish to have Mr. Huggins represent you, or do you wish to represent yourself? Garey: Your Honor, if you'll be fair with me. I want to make one more statement and I'll answer your question affirmatively. Is that fair, Your Honor? Court: Yes, sir. The court permitted Garey to catalogue his tactical disagreements with Huggins. Garey then stated: Garey: Your Honor, I am not going to let Mr. Huggins represent me. And if the Court is giving me no other choice, I will have to go along with the choice of involuntarily waiving my right to counsel, involuntarily waive. But I'm not going to let Mr. Huggins represent me, because he's a victim of the crime I'm accused of. I don't feel comfortable. Faretta says the right goes to the accused. 413 [422] U.S. at page 806, 819 through 20 [95 S.Ct. 2525], says it's the accused who suffers the adversity if the defense failed.     Court: Just to be fair to you, let me make sure the record is clear. It's my understanding that the defendant wishes to have competent counsel appointed to represent him. Garey: Conflict-free counsel. Court: Conflict-free counsel to represent him. He has concluded, in his mind, that Mr. Huggins is not conflict-free; and therefore, he does not wish to have Mr. Huggins represent him. If the court does not appoint other counsel, and indicates to the defendant that the only counsel that he can be represented by, in an appointed capacity ... is Mr. Huggins, then it's the Court's understanding that the defendant wishes [to] proceed with representation of himself without counsel. Is everything I stated accurate? Garey: Involuntarily without counsel, yes. Court: In other words, if I say that I find that Mr. Huggins is competent and conflict-free, and he's the only appointed lawyer you are going to get, your choice would be to proceed with representing yourself without counsel. Is that correct? Garey: I'll say it again, Your Honor. I'm going to involuntarily represent myself because I do not feel comfortable with the victim of the crime that I'm accused of Court: The Court interprets that to mean if the Court does not assign other counsel other than Mr. Huggins, that the defendant wishes to proceed to represent himself. The Court ... has advised the defendant of the Court's advice that he proceed with representation by Mr. Huggins. The Court has also advised the defendant of the downside of not being represented by counsel. Notwithstanding that advice, noticed by the Court, the Court finds that the defendant has voluntarily and knowingly decided to Garey: Involuntarily, Your Honor. Court: You can put your spin on it. The Court finds that the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily decided to proceed with representation of himself. The Court is going to request that Mr. Huggins remain as stand-by counsel in case that becomes appropriate or necessary. Shortly thereafter, the venire panel was convened, and the jury was chosen before the court recessed for the day. The following morning, before the trial commenced, the judge counseled Garey further on the dangers of self-representation and provided him with another opportunity to accept Huggins' representation. The judge opened by commenting: Mr. Garey, I have already made the decision and found you competent to represent yourself and that your decision to proceed with your own representation was made freely and voluntarily, after hearing from you yesterday. However, I think the Court should make a few additional observations for the record, and also for your benefit, with regard to your self-representation and the pitfalls that potentially lie ahead. First of all, it's the Court's observation that, based upon the handling of this case to date, that you have been intimately involved in the defense of this case. You are fully aware of the charges. You are fully aware of the facts. You are competent and understand the consequences of your actions. And you appear to the Court to be intelligent, and to be acting freely and voluntarily, particularly as that relates to your decision to represent yourself. However, the Court once again strongly encourages you to reconsider your decision to proceed without Mr. Huggins as your attorney. This trial will be complex. There are many legal issues where you would benefit from the advice of a trained attorney. Turning to the penalties Garey faced upon conviction, the district court asked the Government to confirm the anticipated Sentencing Guidelines range for Garey's offense, emphasizing, I just think it's important for Mr. Garey to understandhe may already know. But I think it's important on the record for him to be advised of the potential sentence in this case as he decides whether to stand on his decision to proceed without legal counsel. After the anticipated sentence was confirmed, the court continued: Mr. Garey, I just want to make sure that you understand that with regard to the notice of estimated sentencing guideline range that was filed on March 29th of 2004, with which you were provided notice of [sic], the preliminary estimated guideline range was 87 months to 108 months; but it was clearly indicated that that is preliminary. In other words, there are certain factors that could result in an increase of that amount, such as your prior criminal history, if you have one; other aggravating circumstances. And therefore, the Court wants to make sure you understand that that 87 to 108 months is not binding. But with that preliminary estimate in mind, I just want to make sure you understand the seriousness of these charges and that if you are convicted, you would face some substantial time in federal prison. Therefore, as you make your decision to represent yourself, I want you to understand all of the consequences. The judge went on to explain to Garey further pitfalls involved in representing [himself.] In addition to you not having the legal training that a lawyer would have, my concern is there are pitfalls in any litigation for the unwary; and it is preferable, in my view, to have an attorney who understands those pitfalls. For example, there are pitfalls with regard to your potentially waiving your right under the Fifth Amendment: your right against self-incrimination. You have the right, under the Fifth Amendment, not to testify and not to put up any evidence, and the fact that you don't testify and don't put up any evidence cannot be used against you.     However, the Court is concerned that, as an untrained layman, you could do something during the trial that could waive your right under the Fifth Amendment. That is a right that is waivable. If you decide to take the stand and testify, then you would waive, to some or a complete extent, your rights under the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. There is a potential pitfall with regard to you giving an opening statement. You are allowed to give an opening statement and tell the jury what you think the evidence will show or will not show, but if you attempt to testify during an opening statement and tell them personally that you are innocent and why you are innocent.     But these are potential pitfalls that I don't want you to fall into. You have that right to give that opening statement, but I want to make sure you don't cross the line and do something that may give up your right under the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. Of course, if your plan is to testify, then you can tell the jury that in your opening statement; but you need to understand that by testifying, you waive certain rights under the Fifth Amendment.     [I]f you take the witness stand, then you are subject to cross-examination by the government. There is the potentialif you have a previous felony conviction, there's the potential that that could come into evidence during their cross-examination of you for impeachment purposes; whereas if you did not take the stand, that conviction would not be admissible. Just an example of a potential pitfall of proceeding with representing yourself and not having an attorney there to represent you and advise you. The court also clarified that Garey did not have to represent himself in order to preserve for appeal his contention that Huggins was operating under a conflict of interest, stating, I want to make sure you don't think that to assert your ineffectiveness claim, you have to represent yourself. You do not. After giving these admonitions, the judge asked Garey whether it [wa]s still [his] decision to proceed with representing [him]self. Garey responded: Your Honor, I'm not voluntarily waiving my Sixth Amendment rights, but I'm not going to allow Mr. Huggins to continue as representation. I mean, if you let him stay on as stand-by counsel for insurance, I'm not going to argue with the Court on that. I'm not going to argue with that, because I'm not voluntarily waiving my right. Just before the jury was brought into the courtroom, the judge asked Garey whether he wished to give his own opening statement, or have Huggins make it for him. Garey answered: I'm going to manage my own destiny at that point, Your Honor, because I have no other alternative except to proceed either with an attorney who I believe is a conflict or to represent myself. The Court is only giving me two options, so I have to choose the lesser option, which is to go without counsel, because I don't want to go with a counsel that we're not agreeing eye to eye on. I'm strong about my issues. Garey represented himself throughout trial, with Huggins remaining as standby counsel. On the morning of the second day of trial, the trial judge once again offered his opinion that Huggins had done a good job handling Garey's case, and Huggins reported he stood ready, willing, and able to assist Garey in an active capacity. Garey did not accept Huggins' offer, however, and continued to represent himself for the remainder of trial. When trial concluded, the jury found Garey guilty of all counts charged, and he was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. Garey appealed, contending the trial judge violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by requiring him to represent himself when he had not explicitly asked to do so. A divided panel of this Court agreed and reversed Garey's conviction. See United States v. Garey, 483 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir.2007). We granted en banc review on the question whether Garey knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.