United States v. Doyle Smith
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13766
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Doyle D. Smith was indicted on tax-related offenses; he initially waived counsel and was permitted to proceed pro se with standby counsel appointed.
- Magistrate judge later revoked Smith’s pro se status after Smith missed a 9:00 a.m. pretrial conference (arriving ~2.5 hours late), filed frivolous pleadings, and allegedly disobeyed pretrial orders; bond was revoked temporarily.
- At an October 17 hearing Smith consented to counsel and was released; the court continued the trial to February 9, 2015.
- In January 2015 Smith (through appointed counsel Jack Schisler) moved to withdraw counsel so Smith could proceed pro se; Schisler offered to serve as standby counsel.
- The district court denied the renewed request, citing timeliness, prior waiver, pretrial obstruction (failure to respond to proposed jury instructions/plea offer, failure to confer, frivolous filings), and concern Smith intended to advance improper arguments.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding the district court erred in denying Smith’s timely pretrial Faretta request absent serious obstructionist misconduct showing he would disrupt the trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Court/Gov) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a timely pretrial Faretta request was permissible | Smith: his January request to proceed pro se (with standby counsel ready) was timely (before empanelment) and genuine | Court/Gov: request was untimely, a "flip-flop," and motivated by obstruction/delay concerns | Held: Request was timely; denial was error — pretrial Faretta requests are timely if made before jury empanelment absent delay tactic |
| Whether magistrate’s prior revocation of pro se status barred renewed request | Smith: current request must be judged on circumstances at time of request, not as automatic review of prior revocation | Court/Gov: motions effectively sought review of magistrate judge’s prior order revoking pro se status | Held: Court erred treating the motion as review of the magistrate judge’s order; prior revocation is background only |
| Whether pretrial conduct (missed conference, failure to respond to proposed materials, frivolous filings) justified denying Faretta right | Smith: conduct was annoying but not the kind of serious, courtroom-disruptive misconduct that warrants denying self-representation; standby counsel was available | Court/Gov: failures violated pretrial orders and showed obstructionist intent and unwillingness to follow rules | Held: Court erred — those pretrial acts did not demonstrate the serious obstructionist misconduct required to deny Faretta rights |
| Whether concern that Smith would press "improper" arguments (e.g., tax-skeptic jurisdictional claims) justified denial | Smith: affirmatively disclaimed raising jurisdictional or other improper claims; wanted to control defense and was prepared to try the case | Court/Gov: feared Schisler would be asked to advance arguments he (as officer of the court) would not make; thus pro se should be denied | Held: Court erred — speculative concern about potential improper arguments is not a sufficient basis to deny the right to self-representation |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (recognizing constitutional right to self-representation when invoked clearly and knowingly)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (competence standards and limits on self-representation)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (court may terminate self-representation for disruptive misconduct)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (scope of pro se defendant's control and role of standby counsel)
- United States v. Mosley, 607 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2010) (pretrial disruptive conduct can justify denying or revoking self-representation)
- United States v. Edelmann, 458 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006) (last-minute pro se requests intended to delay may be denied)
- United States v. Mabie, 663 F.3d 322 (8th Cir. 2011) (serious threats and repeated courtroom disruptions support denying pro se status)
- United States v. Reed, 668 F.3d 978 (8th Cir. 2012) (defendant may present unorthodox defenses and go down in flames)
- United States v. Long, 597 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2010) (impermissible denial of self-representation is not harmless)