Court Opinion

ID: 9470066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:56:29.84152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:42.992835
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that the district court erred in failing to inform the defendant of the availability of appointed counsel should he be indigent. I disagree, however, with the majority’s remedy for that error. Because the original trial was defective only if the defendant was in fact indigent, I would remand for an initial hearing on indigency.
The facts in this case do not establish that the defendant was indigent. During the plea-bargaining stage of the proceedings he had retained an attorney, Emile Bussiere, to represent him, demonstrating some ability to pay for legal services. Bussiere’s discharge before trial need not be interpreted to mean that the defendant lacked the means to retain him; it equally supports the inference that the defendant, who was well-educated, disagreed with his attorney on tactical matters and wished to exercise his right to defend himself.* Even if the discharge was caused by the defendant’s inability to pay Bussiere’s quoted fee of $1,000 per day, he may still have been able to retain less costly counsel. Because we cannot conclude for a certainty that the defendant was indigent on the basis of the evidence presented on appeal, that determination should be made by the district court on remand. Unless the court concludes that the defendant is entitled to appointed counsel, it will be pointless to hold a new trial.

 At the abortive plea-bargaining hearing on October 8, 1981, the following colloquy took place:
THE COURT: ... Brother Bussiere, did you want to put something on the record?
MR. BUSSIERE: I think he may want to, your Honor. Among his discussions with me this morning, he has a pretty strong expression that he doesn’t want me to participate.
THE COURT: All right.
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I’d rather defend myself.
THE COURT: You’d rather proceed without a lawyer?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: ... You may appear pro se, if you wish. We will proceed with trial, and [can you] get your witnesses here by then?
[COUNSEL FOR GOVERNMENT]: ... I would suggest ... that the Court ... talk[ ] to the defendant if he desires to get counsel, other counsel, or retain Mr. Bussiere, [and] that that be a decision he makes pretty quickly so we don’t have another delay.
MR. BUSSIERE: I guess my understanding is I’m relieved of any responsibility.
THE COURT: You are relieved, Mr. Bussiere, and we thank you, and the Court states for the record that I understand it’s not your fault in this situation but these things do happen and the offense here charged does require criminal intent, and if he isn’t willing to agree that he formulated that intent, then he’s entitled to a trial and let the jury determine one way or the other. All right. Anything further that I can do for anybody at this point?
MR. BUSSIERE: I think maybe I should probably say this much more: I have felt that I had covered the situation with him, your Honor, so that this would not happen in court this morning.
THE COURT: ... But whatever the reason, it’s there and he’s entitled to have his trial if [he] wants it, and we’ll be glad to accommodate him.