United States v. Charles Thomas
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14941
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Charles Thomas was charged with participating in a heroin-distribution conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute (Oct 25, 2010), and using a cell phone during the drug deal; trial followed coconspirator Domingo Blount’s guilty plea.
- Thomas cycled through multiple court-appointed attorneys, repeatedly complained and refused to cooperate with counsel, and sought substitute counsel on the eve of trial.
- The district court refused to appoint a fifth lawyer, gave Thomas the choice to keep counsel, retain counsel, or proceed pro se, and conducted two Faretta hearings; Thomas ultimately chose to represent himself with standby counsel.
- At trial the government presented surveillance, intercepted calls, and coconspirator testimony placing Thomas at the drug deals; Thomas called Blount, who testified falsely that Thomas was not present or providing security.
- The jury convicted Thomas on all counts; at sentencing the district court applied a 2-level U.S.S.G. §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement for suborning perjury and imposed a within-guidelines 262-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of substitute appointed counsel | District court abused discretion by refusing to appoint new counsel on demand | Thomas argued appointed counsel was inadequate and conflict justified substitution | No abuse of discretion: court adequately inquired, motion not timely, and Thomas’s refusal to cooperate caused conflict |
| Waiver of right to counsel | Waiver was coerced/forced by court refusal to appoint new counsel | Thomas voluntarily and knowingly chose to proceed pro se after Faretta warnings | Waiver was knowing and intelligent; Faretta inquiries and record support waiver |
| Obstruction-of-justice (2-level) enhancement for suborning perjury | Enhancement improperly applied because testimony was legitimate defense evidence | Government: Blount willfully lied, testimony was material, and Thomas used Blount knowing it was false | Affirmed: court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous; enhancement proper where defendant used witness to present known false testimony |
| Sixth Amendment challenge to enhancement | Enhancement punishes exercise of right to present a defense | No right to present perjured testimony; enhancement targets suborning perjury | Rejected: no constitutional violation—no right to present perjured testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Oreye, 263 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2001) (courts may treat a defendant’s rejection of appointed counsel as invoking Faretta under certain circumstances)
- United States v. Harris, 394 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 2005) (review standard for denial of substitute counsel is abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Bjorkman, 270 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2001) (factors for evaluating substitute-counsel requests)
- United States v. Irorere, 228 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2000) (defendant’s refusal to cooperate can justify denying new appointed counsel)
- United States v. Alden, 527 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2008) (standards for knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel)
- United States v. Clark, 774 F.3d 1108 (7th Cir. 2014) (discussion of standard of review for waiver-of-counsel findings)
- United States v. Eads, 729 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2013) (review of waiver findings referenced)
- United States v. James, 487 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 2007) (discusses de novo review line for waiver of counsel)
- United States v. Hoskins, 243 F.3d 407 (7th Cir. 2001) (waiver-of-counsel review precedent)
- United States v. DeLeon, 603 F.3d 397 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for obstruction enhancement findings)
- United States v. Pabey, 664 F.3d 1084 (7th Cir. 2011) (elements for finding subornation of perjury)
- United States v. Grigsby, 692 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2012) (materiality of false testimony need not be outcome-determinative)
- United States v. Lowder, 148 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 1998) (no right to present perjured testimony)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (defendant’s right to testify does not include the right to commit perjury)