Opinion ID: 78113
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Garey's Waiver

Text: We now turn to whether Garey's waiver of counsel was both knowing and voluntary, a mixed question of law and fact which this Court reviews de novo. Cash, 47 F.3d at 1088. This case comes to us on direct appeal; therefore, the Government bears the burden of proving the waiver was valid. Greene v. United States, 880 F.2d 1299, 1303 n. 6 (11th Cir.1989) (citing Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 404, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 1242, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977)). In light of the new rule recognized today, the first question we must answer is whether Garey waived his right to counsel voluntarily, either by affirmatively invoking his right to self-representation or by his conduct in rejecting all other available options. The Government contends Garey made an affirmative request to represent himself when he told the district court he would manage [his] own destiny and choose the lesser option, which is to go without counsel. We see several obstacles to classifying these statements as the sort of clear, unequivocal requests we have previously equated with affirmative waiver. First, the statements were not made until the morning of December 7, 2004, after the court had demoted Huggins to the position of standby counsel and after important final pretrial proceedings (such as jury selection) had already taken place. Second, in order to read Garey's statements as an unequivocal request to proceed pro se, we would need to read them in isolation. In context, what Garey said was this: 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. Garey's choice may have been clear, but it was not unequivocal. Given these facts, it is easy to see why the trial court was hesitant to compel Garey to accept Huggins' representation when it was clear Garey did not want Huggins' assistance, did not trust Huggins' allegiance, and disagreed with the manner in which Huggins was representing him. Once the trial court denied Garey's motion for substitution of counsel, it found itself in a difficult position: Garey had no right to counsel other than Huggins, but he had already made clear he did not want Huggins to represent him. Recognizing Garey's words and actions implicated his right to self-representation as well as his right to counsel, the court set before Garey two constitutionally permissible choices and asked him to choose between them. On December 6, the judge cautioned Garey to make the decision to proceed pro se very carefully, advising him, I think it would generally be a disadvantage not to have [a lawyer's] experience and expertise available to you. After hearing multiple warnings and being questioned repeatedly (largely to no avail), Garey insisted: 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. Before trial commenced the next morning, the judge tried again to dissuade Garey from proceeding pro se. The judge carefully reviewed with Garey the anticipated guideline sentence and warned him that his actual sentence could be higher based on past convictions or other aggravating factors. The judge warned Garey of the danger of unintentionally waiving his right against self-incrimination during opening statement and cautioned him that he could be impeached with evidence of past convictions should he choose to testify. Repeatedly, the court expressed its belief that an attorney would be able to offer Garey advice and assistance. Garey was not deterred, however, explaining he would manage [his] own destiny because he did not want a lawyer with whom he did not see eye to eye. On appeal, Garey contends it was error for the trial court to put him to the choice of waiving counsel or proceeding pro se when he had asked only for substitution of counsel. As we explained above, the problem with Garey's position is that it ignores the logical consequences of the denial of his substitution motion. Garey was presented with two constitutional options: accept representation by a competent, unconflicted lawyer or represent yourself. No less than four times, Garey rejected Huggins' representation outright, and several times more he expressed his intent to represent himself (albeit involuntarily). By rejecting appointed counsel, Garey voluntarily chose to proceed pro se as surely as if he had made an affirmative request to do so. Therefore, we conclude Garey voluntarily waived his right to counsel by his conduct. The next question then is whether Garey's waiver was knowing. Before allowing Garey to proceed pro se, the trial court did not engage in a reciprocal Faretta dialogue; however, he clearly advised Garey of the dangers of proceeding pro se on two occasionsfirst, at the December 6, 2004 hearing on Garey's motion for substitution of counsel, and second, on the morning of December 7, after the jury had been selected but before the trial began. On those occasions, Garey provided circular answers to the court's most basic questions regarding his desire to proceed pro se. Given that fact, there is little reason to believe Garey would have been forthcoming had the court asked further questions regarding his knowledge of the law. What the trial court did do was explain to Garey, clearly and repeatedly, what his constitutional choices were and what dangers lay along the path of self-representation. Garey was told there were many advantages to being represented by an attorney trained in the law and familiar with the rules of evidence and other rules applicable to his case. The trial court warned of pitfalls associated with interrogating, impeaching, and cross-examining witnesses and discussed with Garey the calculus involved in deciding whether to testify at trial. In addition, the court explained some of the challenges Garey would face in making his opening statement. By Garey's responses and non-responses and half-responses to the trial court's warnings and questions, it is clear he understood his choices. It is also clear Garey understood the advantages counsel could offer and indicated his desire to be represented by someone other than Huggins. Most importantly, it is clear Garey weighed his constitutional options and made the reasoned (even if imprudent) decision he would rather forego counsel than go to trial with Huggins, whose approach to the case Garey distrusted. Given these facts, we conclude Garey knowingly waived his right to counsel.