Opinion ID: 3020769
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District Court’s Colloquy

Text: We also observe that the District Court’s formal inquiry of Jones regarding his decision and ability to proceed pro se skipped several important bases. As noted above, this Court requires a penetrating and comprehensive evaluation of the defendant’s reasons for proceeding pro se and his capacity to do so, which must include a detailed, on-the-record explanation of 22 the various problems and pitfalls the defendant may encounter. As we explained in Peppers, the District Court’s inquiry must establish that the defendant understands “all risks and consequences associated with his decision for selfrepresentation,” and “even [if] the colloquy skips just one of the [relevant] factors,” it fails to establish that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. 302 F.3d at 135.6 6 The District Court conducted its colloquy with Jones ex parte, without the Government’s participation. Although we have found no authority prohibiting such an approach, we believe it inadvisable. As the Seventh Circuit noted in Bell, the Assistant United States Attorney serves a useful function in assuring that a district court’s colloquy is sufficient. See 901 F.2d at 578 (“As an officer of the court, the AUSA has some responsibility to ensure, as far as may be reasonably possible, the integrity of the proceedings. To this end, the AUSA should have assisted the magistrate by calling to his attention the possible inadequacy of [the] warnings.”). Indeed, the prosecutor has a strong self-interest in doing so, for if the colloquy is inadequate, the prosecutor will be forced to retry the case. We believe the prosecutor’s presence would have been especially advisable in this case. The District Court conducted its colloquy at a hearing convened to consider Attorney Rymsza’s motion to withdraw as Jones’ counsel. We of course have no question that Rymsza acted in good faith and desired to benefit his soon-to-be-former client as much as possible under the circumstances, but that is beside the point. The fact remains that, on such a motion, Rymsza’s interests were opposed to those of Jones. Thus, the District Court’s question to Rymsza 23 The District Court’s colloquy with Jones established six things: (1) Jones did not wish to have Rymsza represent him; (2) he wished to proceed pro se if he could not have a different lawyer; (3) he had never studied law; (4) he could have standby counsel, but standby counsel could not give him advice or question him if he took the stand in his own defense; (5) he would be responsible for “the presentation of [his] case”; and (6) he was “somewhat” familiar with the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. These issues are, of course, part of the “penetrating and comprehensive examination of all the circumstances” we require. But other important issues escaped examination. The District Court did not, for example, inquire whether Jones understood the possible defenses available to him, nor did it explain that it could not give him any assistance. It did not discuss any of the potential problems that an incarcerated defendant might encounter in obtaining evidence and locating and questioning witnesses. Upon hearing that Jones was only “somewhat” familiar with the Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure, the Court did not ask any follow-up questions to determine the extent of his understanding, and whether he knew that these rules prohibited him from simply telling the jury his whether he believed Jones knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel was misdirected; that question would have been better addressed to the Government’s attorney. 24 story. Moreover, the Court never informed Jones that representing himself was inadvisable. The District Court also never informed Jones of the magnitude of the sentence he could receive as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines (which nearly quintupled the sentence he would otherwise receive), or of the fact that his prior drug convictions raised the statutory maximum punishment to 30 years in prison. The Government argues that the possible sentence was discussed at Jones’ initial appearance before a Magistrate Judge in July 2003 (more than a year before the colloquy that is our focus), and thus Jones knew what he faced. As explained above, we reject the approach of some of our sister Circuits that allows examination of the record as a whole in an attempt to divine what the defendant understands about the consequences of proceeding pro se. A complete, on-the-record colloquy with the defendant, one that assures he understands all the risks of proceeding without an attorney at the time he makes that choice, is in our view a significantly better way of protecting the right to counsel than the whole-record approach. Nonetheless, we have on occasion looked beyond the District Court’s colloquy to determine whether a defendant understood the charges and sentence, most notably in United States v. McFadden, 630 F.2d 963 (3d Cir. 1980). McFadden involved a defendant who “unquestionably” sought to “employ complaints against counsel as a dilatory tactic in order to 25 postpone trial, raise a Speedy Trial Act claim, or await possible death or unavailability of prosecution witnesses.” Id. at 972. We recognized that in those circumstances the defendant was not entitled to challenge the effectiveness of his waiver where the District Court engaged in a lengthy examination of his reasons for proceeding pro se and the record revealed that he had been informed numerous times, by the Court and appointed counsel, of the charges, possible sentence, available defenses, evidence, and the limitations he would face if he refused to accept counsel’s advice. In Welty (decided by a panel that included two of the judges who considered McFadden), we explained that McFadden “represents the furthest that this court has gone in upholding a defendant’s waiver of counsel,” and noted that the unique circumstances of that case — coupled with the fact that McFadden was appointed standby counsel who gave advice, examined McFadden on the stand, and made opening and closing statements — presented a limited circumstance in which we might look beyond the colloquy. Welty, 674 F.2d at 192-93. We explained, however, that McFadden provides “no authority” for relieving the District Court of its usual obligation to conduct a detailed and comprehensive inquiry. Id. at 193.7 7 In Stubbs, we stated that, in a case where the charges and potential punishment were formally explained to the defendant on at least three separate occasions, the trial judge need not have reminded the defendant of them again during the waiver-of-counsel colloquy. See 281 F.3d at 120 n. 9 (citing McFadden, 630 F.2d at 972). The Government relies on this 26 There is no suggestion that Jones sought to proceed pro se for an improper purpose, such as to delay trial or beget a Speedy Trial Act violation. Moreover, to the extent it is relevant, Jones was not permitted the active assistance of standby counsel. See Welty, 674 F.3d at 193 (distinguishing McFadden, inter alia, on the ground that “the Court in [that case], unlike the court in the instant case, appointed a . . . lawyer to serve as standby counsel[,] . . . [who] sat at the counsel table with McFadden, was available to give McFadden any legal advice he needed, examined McFadden when he took the stand, and made opening and closing statements on McFadden’s behalf”). McFadden does not, therefore, control this case. Even if we were inclined to look beyond the District Court’s colloquy, we note that the record contains no evidence that Jones was ever directly informed of the punishment he faced. At his initial appearance in July 2003, 13 months before the District Court questioned him about his desire to proceed pro statement for the expansive proposition that because the charges and possible sentence a defendant faces are usually entered into the record at the initial appearance, there is no need to include these as part of the District Court’s examination. Our decision in Stubbs held that numerous other problems with the District Court’s colloquy in that case rendered the defendant’s waiver ineffective, and thus the cited footnote was dicta. Also, as is clear from the discussion below, Jones’ case is distinguishable from the situation in Stubbs (and the situation in McFadden). 27 se, the only mention of the potential punishment was a short statement by the prosecutor to the Magistrate Judge, in Jones’ presence, that Jones was a “career criminal” who would face a statutory maximum of 30 years in prison and a minimum Guidelines sentence of 21 years. The Magistrate Judge did not attempt to ascertain whether Jones understood this sentence, and apparently it was never mentioned again. Indeed, there is evidence in the record that Jones did not understand his possible punishment: in his December 2003 letter to the District Court requesting that his first attorney be replaced, Jones stated (erroneously) that “the actual highest possible sentence I c[an] receive [is] 20 yrs. (240 mths.).” In any event, the prosecutor’s single mention of the potential punishment at a hearing more than a year before Jones expressed his desire to proceed pro se was insufficient, as a matter of law, to demonstrate that he was aware of the magnitude of punishment he faced. We require a detailed colloquy with the defendant explaining the various factors relevant to his decision to represent himself, at the time he seeks to waive counsel, precisely to avoid such problems. The knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of a defendant’s decision to waive his fundamental right to counsel should not hinge on fuzzy inferences about his understanding of crucial subjects gleaned from comments made by others at hearings months or even years before.