United States v. Booker
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13445
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Bank robbery in Brookhaven, PA on June 15, 2004 by Booker with co-conspirators; Booker’s role was door guard and $52,935.75 was stolen.
- Booker was arrested on unrelated firearms/cocaine charges on Oct 24, 2004; he invoked Miranda and was represented by counsel on those charges.
- Darby Borough Police and FBI Agent Roselli conducted multiple interviews with Booker in Nov–Dec 2004 after noting his interest in discussing bank robberies; Miranda warnings were given and FD-395 forms signed.
- On Dec 22, 2004, Roselli took custody of Booker, advised Miranda, Booker waived, and he made voluntary statements about the drug/firearm charges.
- Booker was charged with Counts One, Four, and Five; he moved to suppress the November/December statements; the District Court denied; Booker later elected to proceed pro se after an ex parte colloquy that misstated a mandatory minimum.
- Jury convicted Booker on Counts One, Four, and Five (Feb 1, 2007) and he was sentenced to 60 months, 262 months, and 300 months respectively; the sentences were to run consecutively (Count Five) and the district court’s colloquy misstated penalties, leading to the appeal and remand for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary given the punishment-range misstatement for Count Five | Booker argues the district court failed to inform the range of punishments, making the waiver defective. | Government contends review of total record shows a voluntary waiver despite some omissions. | Waiver not knowing or voluntary; structural error; remand for new trial on all counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moskovits v. United States, 86 F.3d 1303 (3d Cir. 1996) (standard for informed waiver of counsel; tailoring remedy under Morrison)
- Jones v. United States, 452 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2006) (waiver colloquy must inform range of punishments; complete on-record colloquy preferred)
- Peppers v. United States, 302 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2002) (three skeletal requirements for pro se waiver; use Benchbook guidance)
- In Morrison, United States v., 449 U.S. 361 (1981) (tailored remedy principle for Sixth Amendment violations)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (right to self-representation not subject to harmless-error analysis)