United States v. Daniel Lee, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14607

Background

Defendant (self-represented on appeal) was tried and convicted of four pharmacy robberies, firearm use, and drug distribution; sentenced to 780 months.
He originally had court-appointed counsel and filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence; a suppression hearing before a magistrate was scheduled.
Nine days before the hearing he moved to discharge counsel and proceed pro se for the entire case; he did not request a continuance or object to the magistrate adjudicating the suppression motion.
The magistrate conducted a two-day, nine-hour suppression hearing with counsel representing defendant, then after the hearing granted the pro se request but denied reopening the hearing for additional evidence and recommended denying the suppression motion.
The district judge adopted the recommendation to deny suppression (on somewhat different grounds) and allowed the defendant to proceed pro se at trial.
On appeal the defendant argued he was constitutionally denied the right to represent himself at the suppression hearing; the court found the denial violated the Sixth Amendment and ordered a new suppression hearing with the defendant allowed to represent himself.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation at the suppression hearing	The government argued the magistrate's delay in ruling was mere caution and did not violate rights	Defendant argued he timely sought to proceed pro se and was improperly forced to proceed with counsel at the hearing	Court held the defendant was denied his right to self-representation at the suppression hearing; the post-hoc grant did not cure the violation
Whether the denial of the right to self-representation is subject to harmless-error analysis	Government implicitly argued any error was harmless because suppression would fail anyway	Defendant argued denial was structural and not subject to harmless-error review	Court held the denial is not amenable to harmless-error analysis; such rights must be restored rather than excused
Appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation	Government urged no new trial since evidence of guilt overwhelming and suppression denial harmless	Defendant sought vindication by redoing the suppression hearing pro se (and new trial if suppression granted)	Court ordered a new suppression hearing with the defendant allowed to represent himself; if suppression granted, grant new trial; otherwise reinstate judgment
Whether other trial objections (photo exhibit use, prosecutor opinion) warranted relief	Government contended those objections were meritless	Defendant contested prosecutor misconduct in closing and exhibit use	Court found these additional arguments meritless and not reversible

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (recognizes Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004) (competence and knowing waiver requirements for self-representation)
United States v. Johnson, 534 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2008) (self-representation applies to critical stages)
United States v. Hamilton, 391 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (suppression hearings are critical stages implicating Faretta)
Moore v. Haviland, 531 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2008) (post-hoc findings cannot cure denial of the right to self-representation)
United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) (limits harmless-error review for certain counsel-related violations)
United States v. Harbin, 250 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2001) (discusses structural error and prejudice analysis)
Walberg v. Israel, 766 F.2d 1071 (7th Cir. 1985) (constitutional procedural safeguards required even when guilt appears overwhelming)
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (erroneous deprivation of counsel is structural error)
Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986) (difficulties proving prejudice from denial of rights)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (public-trial violations not subject to harmless-error; remedy tailored to violation)
United States v. Essex, 734 F.2d 832 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (discusses effectiveness of self-representation)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (limitations on standby counsel when defendant proceeds pro se)