Opinion ID: 759989
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sixth Amendment Right of Self-Representation

Text: 7 A criminal defendant is both constitutionally and statutorily entitled to waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and proceed pro se in a federal criminal trial. United States v. McKinley, 58 F.3d 1475, 1480 (10th Cir.1995); see also, e.g., Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-35, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). However, to invoke this right, the defendant must timely assert his intention clearly and unequivocally, McKinley, 58 F.3d at 1480, and the decision must be voluntary, intelligent, and knowing, see Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835; United States v. Treff, 924 F.2d 975, 978 (10th Cir.1991). Moreover, no constitutional right to a hybrid form of representation exists. See McKinley, 58 F.3d at 1480; Treff, 924 F.2d at 979 n. 6. 8 The parties in this case do not dispute the law. Instead, their arguments center upon whether Mr. Locke properly asserted his intention to proceed pro se. Relying primarily on defendant's Motion of [I]neffective Counsel and Defendant's Affidavit in Support of Motion to Act as Co-Counsel, defendant argues that he made a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself. The government, however, asserts that he simply requested permission to act as co-counsel. We agree with the government. 9 In his Motion of [I]neffective Counsel defendant states, If effective counsel cannot be appointed, defendant request[§ the] Court to find defendant standing Pro Se. He later agreed to retain his current counsel. Further, in Defendant's Affidavit in Support of Motion to Act as Co-Counsel, he declares: 10 7. Your deponent[ ] will be represented at this trial by [a] practicing attorney. It is my intention to fully cooperate with this attorney regarding the exercise of any co-counsel role granted me by the Court.... 11 8. That at the present time, your deponent conceive[s] of his co-counsel role as embracing the following: participation in the process of jury selection; participating in opening and closing statements; and[ ] participation in cross-examination of any witness the government may offer. 12 These representative statements do not clearly and unequivocally state defendant's desire to represent himself. They merely indicate that he would like to somewhat participate in his defense as co-counsel. Moreover, nowhere in either of these motions or during the pretrial hearing does defendant clarify his desire to represent himself. Thus, because defendant has no constitutional right to a form of hybrid representation and did not clearly and unequivocally indicate his desire to proceed pro se, no violation of the Sixth Amendment occurred. 13