State of Maine v. Joshua R. Nisbet, 134 A.3d 840

Joshua Nisbet was charged with Class A robbery (knife) in 2011, tried in 2014, and sentenced after a jury found him guilty.
Over ~2.5 years five different attorneys represented or were appointed to represent Nisbet; multiple withdrawals occurred after breakdowns in the attorney-client relationship.
Two appointed attorneys (Duffett and Gale) moved to withdraw after Nisbet made a direct, graphic threat to physically harm Gale in Duffett's presence; the court found the threat credible.
The trial court concluded replacement counsel would be futile given Nisbet’s repeated refusal to cooperate, history of delay-seeking discovery, and prior attorney withdrawals, and it declined to appoint new counsel.
The court (after competency evaluation and hearings) ordered Nisbet to proceed unrepresented with standby counsel, concluding he had both (1) impliedly waived counsel by conduct and (2) forfeited the right to counsel because of egregious misconduct and lack of meaningful alternatives.
On appeal Nisbet challenged the court’s determination; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, recognizing forfeiture as a doctrine in Maine and alternatively finding waiver by conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Nisbet)	Held
Whether a defendant can forfeit the constitutional right to counsel for misconduct toward counsel	Forfeiture is recognized; egregious threats and manipulative conduct can justify requiring self-representation when no reasonable alternative exists	Forfeiture should not apply; right to counsel is fundamental and cannot be lost this way	Court recognized forfeiture doctrine and held it applies in extreme cases; affirmed forfeiture here
Whether the trial court erred in requiring Nisbet to proceed without counsel (given record)	Court reasonably concluded no lesser alternative existed because Nisbet repeatedly sabotaged representation and caused delay; appointment of new counsel would be futile	Court should have appointed successor counsel; removing counsel denied Nisbet his right to counsel	Court held the trial court did not err: Nisbet both impliedly waived counsel by conduct and forfeited the right due to egregious, obstructive misconduct

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (waiver of counsel must be knowing and voluntary)
Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333 (importance of right to counsel in adversary system)
State v. Watson, 900 A.2d 702 (Me.) (waiver by conduct; defendant must understand perils of self-representation)
Commonwealth v. Means, 907 N.E.2d 646 (Mass.) (forfeiture doctrine and limits; forfeiture as last resort for extreme misconduct)
United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092 (3d Cir.) (discussing waiver by conduct and forfeiture)
United States v. Thomas, 357 F.3d 357 (3d Cir.) (forfeiture after threatening/assaultive conduct toward counsel)