United States v. Barnes
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18600
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Barnes was indicted in 2004 and later charged in a 38-count superseding indictment with racketeering, murder, kidnapping, narcotics conspiracy, and related offenses; he was represented by Eisemann throughout pretrial and trial proceedings.
- Barnes repeatedly objected to Eisemann as counsel and at times claimed he did not consent to representation or participation in court, including assertions that he did not recognize jurisdiction and that a corporation (the U.S.) controlled the court.
- In mid-2008 Barnes asked to proceed pro se; the district court indicated a hearing would be needed and ordered a competency evaluation, expressing skepticism about self-representation.
- The court conducted a psychiatric evaluation which found Barnes competent to stand trial and to represent himself, but no final ruling on self-representation was entered; Barnes did not reassert his pro se request.
- Barnes chose to continue with Eisemann as counsel; the trial occurred in 2009, Barnes testified, and he was convicted on seven counts and sentenced to 300 months, with Eisemann representing him throughout.
- The appellate court held Barnes abandoned his self-representation request by not pursuing it after the evaluation and through subsequent proceedings, affirming the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barnes validly preserved the right to self-representation. | Barnes clearly and unequivocally asserted the right. | The court should have granted the request and held a hearing. | No reversible error; Barnes abandoned the request. |
| Whether the court’s inaction on the pro se request violated Faretta/Edwards standards. | Edwards requires competency to represent oneself. | The request was abandoned, so no violation occurred. | Not reversible; abandonment defeated the claim. |
| Whether a pocket veto applies to a district-court self-representation request. | The court failed to rule, effectively denying the request. | Pocket veto does not apply in this context. | Inapplicable; abandonment controls. |
| Whether the district court properly evaluated Barnes’s capacity to represent himself. | Competency evaluation showed capacity to proceed pro se. | The court should have ruled on self-representation sooner. | Proper to conduct evaluation; abandonment leaves issue unresolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (constitutional right to self-representation implied by structure of Sixth Amendment)
- United States v. Purnett, 910 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1990) (waiver of counsel requires knowing, intelligent decision)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (competence to represent oneself required; Edwards)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975) (mental competency essential to stand trial and self-representation)
- Wilson v. Walker, 204 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (unambiguous request to proceed pro se required; can be waived by conduct)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1984) (standby counsel and participation can affect Faretta rights)
- Williams v. Bartlett, 44 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 1994) (vacillation/abandonment can extinguish self-representation rights)