United States v. Burton
698 F. App'x 959
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant was indicted in two related cases before the same district judge; she previously had been allowed to represent herself in the earlier case but that grant was later revoked.
- At an initial appearance in the failure-to-appear case, the defendant requested counsel; counsel confirmed the defendant wanted him to represent her.
- When trial began, the defendant said, “And I fired him and he has no right to speak for me.” The judge replied that counsel was appointed and the defendant was not to represent herself.
- Defendant contended on appeal that her remark (and the judge’s contemporaneous statement) constituted a clear and unequivocal request to proceed pro se.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the defendant clearly and unequivocally invoked the right to self-representation and concluded she did not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant "clearly and unequivocally" requested to represent herself | Burton argues her statement and the context (same judge, prior pro se request, judge’s remark) made her request unequivocal | She says her words and the court’s contemporaneous response show she invoked the right to self-representation | No — the statement was equivocal (could mean new counsel), so she did not clearly and unequivocally invoke the right |
| Whether a trial judge’s subjective understanding can convert an equivocal statement into an unequivocal invocation | N/A | Burton argues that if the court understood her to request self-representation, that should suffice without further clarity | The court rejects this: clarity protects defendants from inadvertent waiver and courts from manipulation; deference to judge’s subjective belief is inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Simpson, 845 F.3d 1039 (10th Cir. 2017) (explains need for clear invocation and that right to counsel has constitutional primacy)
- United States v. Tucker, 451 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2006) (sets four-part test for self-representation requests)
- United States v. Mackovich, 209 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2000) (discusses protections against inadvertent waiver and the need to "invoke" self-representation)
- United States v. Reddeck, 22 F.3d 1504 (10th Cir. 1994) (holds ambiguous statements can reflect either a request for new counsel or for self-representation)
- Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) (establishes presumption against waiver of constitutional rights)