Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Precedential: Circuit Judges
Precedential: Circuit Judges
THE DEFENDANT:
years old.
THE COURT:
in school?
I am fifty-four
THE DEFENDANT:
college.
8
Four years of
THE COURT:
college?
THE DEFENDANT:
Indiana
University, Wilmington [sic], Indiana.
THE COURT:
You need to speak
louder. So you completed your academic
program but if I remember correctly, since
you had an outstanding tuition bill, you
didnt get your degree, is that correct?
THE DEFENDANT:
Thank you.
Degree, yes.
THE COURT:
Do you have any drugs
or alcohol in your system today?
THE DEFENDANT:
No, I do not.
THE COURT:
And do you have any
mental health problems today or have you
had any in the past?
THE DEFENDANT:
THE COURT:
your degree in?
No, I do not.
THE DEFENDANT:
Business
administration and management.
9
THE COURT:
All right. So you did not
go to any post-grad -- or post-graduate
program of any sort, is that correct?
THE DEFENDANT:
No, sir.
Yes.
THE COURT:
And it would be fair to
say that you do not have any legal training,
is that also correct?
THE DEFENDANT:
That is correct.
THE COURT:
It would be fair to say
that you havent gone to law school?
THE DEFENDANT:
That is correct.
THE COURT:
So you obviously
understand this is a court of law with very
clear and established rules and procedures -THE DEFENDANT:
THE COURT:
Yes, sir.
-- correct?
THE DEFENDANT:
THE COURT:
Yes.
Yes.
THE COURT:
There may be certain
things that you want to say that could be
useful. But because youre not legally
trained, you wouldnt think of them, right?
So you may miss things because youre not
legally trained. Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT:
Yes, I do.
THE COURT:
There may be objections
to some of the governments questions. And
because youre not legally trained, you
might not be able to know to object. Do you
understand that?
THE DEFENDANT:
Yes, I do.
THE COURT:
All right. But if you -you, of course, have the absolute right to
represent yourself if thats your wise and
informed choice. You understand that?
THE DEFENDANT:
THE COURT:
Yes, I do.
Yes.
THE COURT:
You understand
everything I have said to you about this?
THE DEFENDANT:
Yes, I do.
THE COURT:
Do you have any
questions about any of it?
THE DEFENDANT:
No. Just apologize
beforehand if I make any errors.
THE COURT:
theyre yours.
THE DEFENDANT:
THE COURT:
advise you --
Okay.
THE DEFENDANT:
Well, but --
THE COURT:
Excuse me. I would
advise you to keep your lawyer. Thats what
I would advise you. I have not seen ever a
12
defendant whos benefitted himself by selfrepresenting. Ever. May you be the first,
but I doubt it. I would advise you to keep
your lawyer. So why do you want to get rid
of her?
THE DEFENDANT:
Sir, because, first
of all, I believe that there have been certain
due process and procedural errors in this
entire venue with respect to my sentencing,
with respect to the documentation that I
received from the probation officer, with
respect to my disposition, the amount of
imprisonment time, the amount of
supervised release time that I had, the
allegations concerning -- I was placed in a
halfway house because of suspicion of doing
business when it was for -- I agreed to
modification because of drug use. There has
been no -THE COURT:
-
THE DEFENDANT:
Sure.
THE COURT:
-- for you even though
this is a case transferred from Virginia. I
probably have eight or ten reports from the
probation department.
13
THE DEFENDANT:
Okay.
THE COURT:
And so, I am very
familiar with and I can measure
independently what Mr. Watts tells me. But
youre explaining to me why you do not
want to be represented by Ms. Coyne. So
tell me why you dont want to be
represented by her.
THE DEFENDANT:
Because, number
one, I believe that I should be able to
confront all my witnesses. And her
speaking on behalf of her daughter, even
though thats her daughter, I dont believe
that thats in my best interest. Number two THE COURT:
Were not in a trial
proceeding. This is a revocation hearing.
And hearsay is admissible and you would
know it if you were a lawyer.
THE DEFENDANT:
Well --
THE COURT:
Hearsay is admissible.
And then, secondly, theres a question of
weight, right -THE DEFENDANT:
14
Correct.
THE COURT:
-- that I would assume to
the evidence. And this is the disadvantage
you have because youre not a lawyer.
THE DEFENDANT:
Right. Yes. I
understand hearsay is admissible but also I
have the right to confront an adverse
witnesses [sic] against me, sir. And just like
she -THE COURT:
Your right to
confrontation applies to revocation
proceedings in the same way that it applies
to a trial, yes or no? Dont know, do you.
THE DEFENDANT:
Yeah, based on
Morrissey v. Brewer, it says yes yes, it is.
And I have the case right here.
THE COURT:
Give me the facts in
Morrissey. Thats from the 60s, right?
THE DEFENDANT:
THE COURT:
70s. I meant it was old.
And if youre going to read from the
document that you submitted, I guess it was
last week, Ive already read that.
THE DEFENDANT:
going to -15
THE COURT:
Youre going to read
from something else?
THE DEFENDANT:
Im sorry?
THE COURT:
Youre going to read
from something else?
THE DEFENDANT:
Yes. Im going to
read from the exact case itself, Morrissey v.
Brewer.
THE COURT:
from Morrissey?
THE DEFENDANT:
Yes.
THE COURT:
Okay. I dont need you
to read Morrissey to me.
THE DEFENDANT:
Well, I was just
going to read the part about what due
process and what respect to supervised
release revocation hearings, just that one
part -THE COURT:
Okay.
THE DEFENDANT:
-- about being able
to confront adverse witnesses.
THE COURT:
(Pause)
THE DEFENDANT:
Okay. It says
basically with respect to preliminary -MS. COYNE:
one.
THE DEFENDANT:
Okay. On
request of the parolee, a person who has
given adverse information on which parole
revocation is to be based is to be made
available for questioning in his presence.
THE COURT:
So why else do you want
to terminate her as your lawyer?
THE DEFENDANT:
Well, sir --
THE COURT:
Well, you know what? I
could just tell you right now. Ms. Williams,
the daughter, I am disregarding all of her
information. All right?
THE DEFENDANT:
THE COURT:
Okay.
Oka. [sic]
THE DEFENDANT:
Okay.
THE COURT:
So go ahead. What else
do you want to say?
THE DEFENDANT:
Well,
understanding exactly what you said, the
witness that is here, she basically stated in
the documentation that I received from
probation that she met me outside of a
convenience store soliciting.
THE COURT:
Sir, I cant talk you out
of self-representing. Is that where were
going? You want to represent yourself?
THE DEFENDANT:
Well, I want
certain questions to be -THE COURT:
to represent --
THE DEFENDANT:
18
Yes.
THE COURT:
Okay. Do you want her
to serve in a backup capacity?
THE DEFENDANT:
Yes, I do.
THE COURT:
All right. Any other
questions either of the lawyers think I need
to ask?
MS. CRAWLEY: No, Your Honor.
MS. COYNE:
THE COURT:
Youve done a lot of
foolish type things in your life, sir. This
might be the most foolish youve ever done.
Thats my advice to you. But if you want to
do it, I dont have legal authority to stop
you. All right.
Transcript of Hearing Regarding Violation of Supervised
Release, Appendix 5562. The District Court granted
Manuels motion to proceed pro se and allowed him to
retain Ms. Coyne as standby counsel.
Manuel represented himself for the remainder of
the July 26 hearing and, at the close of the hearing,
requested a continuance in order to serve subpoenas and
present additional witnesses. The Court granted the
request. At an adjourned revocation hearing on August
27, 2012, Manuel requested, and was granted, another
19
A.
26