Opinion ID: 2982297
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Self-Representation Request.

Text: On November 7, 2005, seven days before his trial was to commence, Halder filed a pro se motion to disqualify his second set of lawyers and have a third set appointed.3 Two days later, on November 9, 2005, the trial court conducted a pretrial hearing at which it considered each of Halder’s complaints in turn,4 determined that they were unfounded, and ultimately overruled them. At that time, the following colloquy ensued: Halder: As to my motion to disqualify counsel, I mean, you are done with it? Trial Court: I just ruled on it. Yes, sir. Halder: In this case, from now onward I want to proceed pro se. Trial Court: You want to represent yourself pro se? Halder: Yes. Trial Court: Would you like to say anything about that, sir? Halder: Anything about what? Trial Court: Your reasons. You are making a motion of the Court, an oral motion of the Court to represent yourself? Halder: Yes. I made myself very clear that my attorneys do not know the background of the case, have done no discovery whatsoever. They have not contacted a single witness, despite the fact that I know numerous people around the world. And they have not done anything. Therefore, I will be much better off having pro se than having these lawyers. .... 3 Halder had filed a total of “six written and several oral motions to disqualify his [first set of] lawyers.” State v. Halder, No. 87974, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 5258, at -31 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2007). 4 Halder’s motion to disqualify raised four complaints about his counsel, none of which are relevant to this appeal. -6- Case No. 12-4244, Halder v. Tibals Trial Court: Mr. Halder, I am not going to rule on this right now, because I would like to look at two cases before I make any decision on this. Because it is a capital case, I want to look at a couple of cases. So we are going to continue. During the break, I will get a couple of the cases. All right? Halder: One case. Faretta versus California. Trial Court: Can you spell it? .... Halder: F A R E T T A. Faretta, 422 U.S. 806, 95 Supreme Court 2575. Trial Court: I will review that case, also, before I make any decisions. Faretta versus California. The following day, after reviewing both U.S. Supreme Court and Ohio cases on the issue of pro se representation, the trial court denied Halder’s request to represent himself as “untimely” and “merely a tactic for delay.” The court observed that Halder “was indicted on this case nearly two and-a-half years ago, and the voir dire with respect to jurors and the jury is due to begin in five days.” “Furthermore,” the court explained, “the defendant made his pro se motion immediately after the Court denied his written motion to disqualify his current attorneys.” On November 14, 2005, the trial court entered an addendum to the denial of Halder’s motion, reiterating its review of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), and stating that Halder’s motion was “untimely, equivocal, and moreover, [wa]s done for the purpose of delay.” The court also delineated several specific factual considerations that underlay its decision, the first twelve of which were as follows: 1. [Halder] utilized two teams of appointed counsel for a total of 30 months; 2. [Halder] made six motions to disqualify the first team of lawyers; -7- Case No. 12-4244, Halder v. Tibals 3. When the Court granted the Motion to Withdraw Counsel on May 12, 2005, Mr. Halder gave the Court a short list of lawyers (one of which was [his present counsel]), requesting he receive a lawyer from the list; 4. Agreeing to Mr. Halder’s specific request, the Court appointed [Halder’s present counsel] on May 20, 2005; 5. Mr. Halder ha[d] utilized this second team since that date; 6. Mr. Halder ha[d] appeared in Court with his attorneys on multiple occasions; 7. Mr. Halder ha[d] sought and received 19 continuances; 8. Mr. Halder based his request for self-representation in Court on counsel not getting discovery, not contacting witnesses and not doing anything they are supposed to do; 9. Mr. Halder’s request came immediately after the Court denied his Motion to Disqualify . . .; 10. Mr. Halder’s motion was not an attempt to disqualify counsel in order to represent himself pro se; 11. Mr. Halder requested leave to represent himself only five days before trial was to commence; 12. In Dr. Bergman’s report, Mr. Halder explained that he would not consider representing himself because he ha[d] no access to the resources he would need to gather evidence and to prepare the case (internet, phone, fax, addresses, etc.), and he does not have the training to know the rules in court. He observed that he would be no match against the prosecutor at a trial[.] Halder proceeded to trial, and on December 16, 2005, the jury found him guilty of 3 counts of aggravated murder, 35 counts of capital murder, 14 counts of aggravated burglary, 143 counts of kidnapping, and 1 count of unlawful possession of dangerous ordnance. Although the trial court granted Halder’s subsequent motion for acquittal on a terrorism charge and ordered the dismissal of several kidnaping charges, Halder ultimately was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. He also received consecutive sentences for certain firearm specifications. -8- Case No. 12-4244, Halder v. Tibals