Ramos v. Racette, 726 F.3d 284

Ramos elected to represent himself pro se and to abstain from trial proceedings.
The trial court briefly introduced Ramos’s standby counsel to the jury as Ramos’s attorney, later recharacterizing him as a ‘legal advisor.’
Retrial occurred after an earlier mistrial caused by the prosecutor’s illness; Ramos again resisted representation and chose to remain absent.
During retrial, Ramos insisted on pro se status; the court clarified Rothberg’s role as a legal advisor, not active counsel.
Ramos was convicted on all counts; he pursued a federal habeas petition arguing his Sixth Amendment self-representation rights were violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether brief standby counsel participation violated self-representation	Ramos: introduction breached Sixth Amendment right	State: minimal intrusion; not substantial	No reversible error; intrusion not substantial
Whether McKaskle supports relief given brief introduction	McKaskle requires strict protection from any intrusion	McKaskle allows limited standby input without undermining self-representation	Ruling denied; not a substantial disruption under McKaskle

McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1984) (standby counsel must not substantially undermine self-representation)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (U.S. 2009) (unestablished rule not clearly established if Supreme Court has not ruled on point)
Davis v. Grant, 532 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (calls for guidance on appointment of counsel for pro se detainees who absented themselves)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (fairminded jurists could disagree on merits; not de novo review standard)
Gibbons v. Savage, 555 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (speculates on substantial intrusion; not necessarily reversible)