United States v. Carpenter
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10258
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Carpenter was convicted on five counts involving child pornography.
- Carpenter appeals on two grounds: Faretta self-representation and statute of limitations for the first two counts.
- At trial, after six witnesses had testified, Carpenter indicated through counsel a desire to represent himself.
- The district court did not hold a Faretta hearing; the court deemed the request untimely and equivocal.
- Carpenter never made an unequivocal, explicit request to represent himself; he did not clearly choose self-representation.
- Counts 1 and 2 involve producing child pornography and permitting a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct; their limitations are at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Carpenter's Faretta request timely and unequivocal? | Carpenter's request was timely and unequivocal because the record shows a desire to proceed pro se. | The request was untimely and equivocal under controlling Ninth Circuit standards. | No, the request was untimely and equivocal; no Faretta hearing required. |
| Do Counts 1 and 2 fall under the extended statute of limitations for sexual abuse of a child? | Counts 1 and 2 fall under the extended § 3283 period because 'sexual abuse' encompasses non-contact offenses. | Counts 1 and 2 lack 'sexual abuse' definition under § 3509(a) for extension; apply general five-year limit. | Counts 1 and 2 fall under the extended statute of limitations for sexual abuse of a child. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Maness, 566 F.3d 894 (9th Cir.2009) (test for timely, unequivocal self-representation)
- United States v. Bishop, 291 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir.2002) (timeliness of Faretta request)
- United States v. Schaff, 948 F.2d 501 (9th Cir.1991) (untimely self-representation waiver)
- Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882 (9th Cir.1990) (waiver of self-representation when not timely asserted)
- United States v. Arlt, 41 F.3d 516 (9th Cir.1994) (unequivocal request requires explicit choice)
- Mugalli v. Ashcroft, 258 F.3d 52 (2d Cir.2001) (definition of sexual abuse used for statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Coutentos, 651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir.2011) (producing child pornography constitutes sexual abuse under §3283)