United States v. Graham
643 F.3d 885
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Graham was indicted in a mortgage fraud scheme and tried separately after insisting on proceeding pro se.
- The district court repeatedly warned Graham about the risks of self-representation and attempted to prepare him through stand-by counsel.
- Discovery issues were addressed with hard copies; Graham sought continuances to obtain counsel of choice, leading to two prior continuances before trial.
- On February 4, 2008, Graham arrived in court in an orange jail suit, refusing to proceed pro se, and later sought to hire counsel mid-trial, but the court proceeded with trial using stand-by counsel.
- Graham was convicted on multiple counts (including conspiracy and mortgage/credit-related offenses) and sentenced to concurrent and consecutive terms totaling 120 months.
- Graham appeals on (1) denial of a continuance to obtain counsel, (2) wearing jail clothes at trial, and (3) admission of lay witness Key’s testimony as expert evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of a continuance to obtain counsel was an abuse of discretion | Graham contends he needed more time to obtain counsel of choice | Court properly weighed interests and found waiver of counsel rights | No abuse; continuance denial upheld |
| Whether wearing orange prison attire at trial violated due process | Prison clothes compelled sympathy and violated due process | Graham created the situation by promising street clothes and failing to provide them | Not a due process violation; error, if any, was harmless |
| Whether Key’s testimony as a lay witness constituted improper expert testimony | Key’s testimony exceeded lay observer limits | Key testified from personal knowledge as a former attorney; no Rule 702 qualification needed | Admissible as lay testimony based on personal knowledge; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the record shows the district court properly managed self-representation during trial | Court should have intervened sooner to appoint counsel | Graham contributed to his own dilemma and delay; not deprived of counsel | Proper balancing of right to counsel and court's efficient administration; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (dress before a jury in jail clothes may violate due process but requires objection; circumstantial)
- Baker v. United States, 432 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005) (continuance decisions hinge on substantial prejudice and right to counsel)
- Terry v. United States, 449 F.2d 727 (5th Cir. 1971) (time to obtain counsel balanced with court efficiency; not automatic entitlement)
- Gandy v. Alabama, 569 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1978) (due process requires fair opportunity to obtain counsel; 18 months ample time)
- SunAmerica Corp. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 77 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 1996) (estoppel where representations moot appeal)
- Tampa Bay Shipbuilding & Repair Co. v. Cedar Shipping Co., 320 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2003) (witness may testify on particularized knowledge without 702 qualification)