Opinion ID: 3154725
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appointed Counsel Golder

Text: Meeting with Defendant the same day she was appointed, Golder filed “Prior Counsel’s Objections to the PSI.” But within two weeks, on April 25, she too had moved to withdraw as counsel, asking the court to conduct a hearing to permit Defendant to proceed pro se. The motion explained that based on her initial two-hour meeting with Defendant, she realized that she would need to review the evidence and record and therefore immediately sought a copy of the evidence. Speaking to the prosecutor, the latter informed her that given the position reflected in Defendant’s objections, the prosecutor might now object to any reduction for acceptance of responsibility. After reviewing the record and conducting research, Golder, like Iacullo before her, concluded that Defendant’s sentencing strategy was not viable. When Golder spoke with Defendant on the phone and explained her concerns, Defendant expressed annoyance that, like Iacullo, Golder disagreed with Defendant’s approach. Greatly agitated by Golder’s observation that his strategy was very flawed, Defendant requested that she withdraw as his attorney. Golder explained that she had spent extensive time working on his case and could not withdraw just because Defendant did not like the legal advice she was giving him. 11 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 12 of 35 Defendant became angrier, called Golder an ugly name, and said he wanted to represent himself. The motion stated that, given all the above, Golder felt she could no longer represent Defendant. The district court held a hearing on Golder’s motion on May 1. Addressing the court, Defendant remarked that Golder had only filed the motion because she was aware that Defendant had already sent a letter to the court asking it to dismiss Golder as his attorney and to permit Defendant to proceed pro se. Indicating that it had not yet received this letter, the court nevertheless permitted Defendant to make an oral motion. Defendant did so, requesting that he be allowed to proceed pro se, but conditioning that request on his being transferred to a federal detention facility with access to a law library. The court made clear that it had no control over Defendant’s transfer to a different facility and, accordingly, it could not so condition its grant of Defendant’s motion to proceed pro se. The court’s explanation triggered repetitive and non-responsive statements by Defendant, always to the effect that he wanted to proceed pro se but that he also insisted on being transferred to a facility with a law library. After the district court had patiently circled three times through the same discussion with Defendant, the latter relented on his conditional motion to proceed pro se, instead requesting that counsel be appointed to represent him at sentencing. Given this change of position by Defendant, the court asked Golder whether she 12 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 13 of 35 was insistent on pursuing her motion to withdraw as Defendant’s attorney. Noting that she had been reluctant to file the motion in the first place, Golder responded that she was willing to represent Defendant at sentencing, if he was also willing. Defendant was not agreeable, immediately interjecting: “I am willing to go forward but not with Ms. Golder.” He then requested that he be appointed new counsel. At this point, the court closed the courtroom, sending out Government personnel and others, to inquire more specifically into Defendant’s dissatisfaction with Golder. Defendant explained that when, at his initial meeting with Golder, he expressed his desire to challenge the two sentencing enhancements, Golder laughed at him. Defendant also stated that in a subsequent phone conversation, Golder told Defendant that his twenty-one page letter to the court, which primarily contained information about his “life and beliefs and [] faith and what I have become in my eleven months in jail,” was “a bunch of bullshit.” Finally, Defendant was upset that Golder had recounted the ugly name he called her and had not filed ex parte her motion to withdraw. For her part, Golder explained that at the prosecutor’s suggestion, she had listened to all of the recorded phone calls between Defendant, David, and the agent posing as the victim’s wife, and she did not think Defendant’s strategy of claiming duress could be pursued in good faith. The court reminded Defendant that Iacullo 13 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 14 of 35 had likewise cautioned him that challenging the two enhancements could lead to losing his acceptance of responsibility reduction. Noting that it had watched Golder practice for many years and that she was “a first class lawyer,” the court denied Defendant’s motion to be appointed different counsel.5 It further reminded Defendant that under the law, he had no right to have a particular lawyer appointed for him or to demand that a different appointed lawyer be provided, absent a showing of good cause, which he had failed to make. Given a choice between proceeding with Golder as his attorney and proceeding pro se, Defendant announced that he would represent himself. Reopening the proceedings to the prosecutor and others, the court reiterated the explanation it had earlier given in closed court that a court should only appoint substitute counsel when a defendant has demonstrated good cause to do so: a showing that Defendant had failed to make. Defendant then formally moved to be allowed to proceed pro se. At that point, the court proceeded with the colloquy called for in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), to insure that Defendant’s waiver of counsel was done knowingly and intelligently. As to both his ability to represent himself at 5 Actually, the court initially stated that it was denying Golder’s motion to withdraw. But Golder reminded the court that she had withdrawn that motion and that the actual motion before the court was Defendant’s motion for new counsel. The court thanked Golder for the clarification and agreed that it was denying the motion for new counsel. 14 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 15 of 35 sentencing and his knowledge of what that might entail, Defendant advocated for self-representation by explaining that he had maintained an active civil litigation practice in New Jersey for thirty years, including extensive trial experience, and he had occasionally practiced in federal court. He explained that he was somewhat familiar with the Sentencing Guidelines and understood his potential sentencing range as well as the fact that he possibly faced a life sentence with no possibility of parole. The court then walked Defendant through an explanation of the sentencing process and the Guidelines’ role in that process. In particular, the court emphasized the consequence of the loss of an acceptance of responsibility reduction, reiterating that Defendant’s pursuit of certain strategies at sentencing could be interpreted as a failure to accept responsibility and reminding him that Iacullo had expressed this same concern to Defendant. Defendant confirmed that he understood the tremendous responsibility he was undertaking and that the court could not assist him. He further acknowledged his awareness that he might not have access to a law library, but that he nonetheless wished to proceed pro se. If the court’s above advice had not been sobering enough, the district court concluded by stating, “I’ve told you in no uncertain terms that I think you are making a profound, profound mistake, and the consequences could be enormously serious to you. Do you understand that?” Defendant responded, “Yes, your 15 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 16 of 35 Honor,” and then again expressed his desire to call as a witness at sentencing the person he alleged to be a member of the Russian mob: Mario. The court appointed Golder as standby counsel, and over the Government’s objection, ordered the Government to produce Mario. C. Defendant’s Self-Representation at the Sentencing Hearing With Golder sitting at defense table with him, Defendant represented himself at the sentencing hearing. The record reflects that the district court listened patiently to Defendant as he went through his factual objections to the PSR, and that it even helped Defendant articulate some specific objections. As to his Guidelines objections, Defendant objected to the six-level enhancement for the ransom demand and to the two-level enhancement for leadership role. Regarding the former, Defendant argued that he should not receive this enhancement for two reasons: (1) he had only demanded the ransom payment under duress and coercion and (2) because the Government could have arrested him before he made a ransom demand, its failure to wait until he actually carried out the scheme meant that it had entrapped him into demanding a ransom. In support of his argument that he had made the ransom demand only under duress, Defendant testified that he believed Mario had ties to the Russian Mafia and that David, the undercover kidnapper, was one of Mario’s Mafia associates. According to Defendant, Mario stated at their initial meeting that he was going to 16 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 17 of 35 take over the whole kidnapping scheme to protect Anna, Defendant’s romantic partner. Mario not only threatened to kill Defendant if anything happened to Anna, but he also threatened to harm Defendant’s family if Defendant did not do everything he was told to do. Defendant further testified that David also threatened him and, in particular, when Defendant said he did not want to be the one to make the ransom demand telephone call, David responded, “Well, if you don’t make the calls, what do we need you for?” Defendant claimed that he understood this to be a threat that he would be killed if he did not make the calls. Defendant’s testimony was contradicted by that of Mario, whom Defendant had insisted on calling as a witness. Mario repeatedly denied having threatened Defendant in any way or having ordered Defendant to do anything. In fact, Mario testified that at their initial meeting, Defendant took control, as he “sat and bragged for thirty minutes about [his] brilliant plan.” As to his feeling threatened by David, Defendant admitted on cross-examination that he discussed with David that he had “done his homework” on the victim and knew how much money they could get from him: assertions that hardly portrayed Defendant as a timid partner in the criminal enterprise. The district court credited Mario’s testimony and did not find believable Defendant’s claim that he had been threatened by either Mario or David. It 17 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 18 of 35 therefore overruled Defendant’s objection to the six-level enhancement for demanding a ransom. 6 As to the two-level enhancement for Defendant’s supervisory role over Kaimacliotis, Defendant argued that he had not recruited Kaimacliotis and that the latter had done almost all of the legwork for the kidnapping. According to Defendant, he and Kaimacliotis made mutual decisions, were going to split the profits of the kidnapping equally, and were equal partners in the scheme. Undercover agent David, however, testified that Defendant minimized Kaimacliotis’ involvement in the planning. To the contrary, Defendant claimed he had done all of the background research on the victim and had orchestrated the plan. In fact, David was unaware that Kaimacliotis had reentered the picture until he and Defendant went to the airport to pick up the money and seeing Kaimacliotis, David asked who he was. Defendant responded that Kaimacliotis worked for him and was responsible for taking the ransom money to a warehouse in Riviera, Florida. 6 Defendant fared no better in his argument that the Government had “entrapped” him into demanding a ransom because it could have arrested him before he made the call. The court concluded that there had been no outrageous conduct by the federal agents. To the contrary, undermining Defendant’s claim that the Government had manipulated Defendant into demanding a ransom was the fact that Defendant admitted he had been planning the kidnapping for eighteen months and that the end goal of the kidnapping scheme was his receipt of a large ransom payment. 18 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 19 of 35 The court overruled Defendant’s objection to the leadership enhancement. The court noted that it was Defendant, not Kaimacliotis, who had allegedly been aggrieved by the victim and who had sought revenge. Moreover, having listened to the recording of Defendant’s conversation with David, the court had no doubt that Defendant was the driving force in the kidnapping plot. In fact, the court found incredible Defendant’s version of events, which painted him as “a leaf [] being blown though this terrible criminal conspiracy at the whim of others.” Following the court’s findings on the above objections, the Government asked the court not to give Defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 7 Finding that Defendant had perjured himself, the court agreed that Defendant was not deserving of this reduction. The court summed up its assessment of Defendant’s lack of contrition: “[Y]ou have pled guilty, but you have done everything you can to shield yourself from an accurate evaluation of your criminal involvement in this.” The adjusted Guidelines range was 292 to 365 months’ imprisonment. After considering all of the § 3553(a) factors, the court noted that Defendant’s crime had not been impulsive, but instead arose out of a long period of planning. Moreover, the court concluded that Defendant would have used any means necessary to 7 Given Defendant’s perjurious testimony at sentencing, the Government also indicated that it had considered seeking an enhancement for obstruction of justice, but decided not to pursue this enhancement. 19 Case: 13-12596 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 20 of 35 obtain the ransom money. The court sentenced Defendant to 292 months’ imprisonment.