United States v. Jason Schaefer, 13f4th875

Background

On Oct. 11, 2017 Jason Schaefer detonated a homemade explosive (TATP in a cigarette case) during an attempted arrest, injuring himself and an officer; he was federally indicted on eight counts including §924(c) and §844(h) offenses.
Schaefer had a history of mental-health treatment; the district court twice found him competent to stand trial after evaluations.
Over 18 months Schaefer had multiple appointed attorneys, repeatedly sought substitutions, and ultimately sought to proceed pro se; after a Faretta hearing (Apr. 2, 2019) the court found his waiver knowing and intelligent and appointed standby counsel.
Trial began May 6, 2019 with Schaefer representing himself; after the jury was sworn he asked standby counsel to take over; counsel said she was unprepared and requested a continuance; the court denied reappointment, finding gamesmanship and delay.
Jury convicted Schaefer on all counts; the court sentenced him to 40 years (including statutory minimums); post-trial motions (including to compel government materials based on a potential leak) were denied.
On appeal Schaefer challenged (1) validity of his Faretta waiver, (2) denial of reappointment at trial, (3) denial of motion to compel government files, (4) classification of his device as a "destructive device," and (5) speedy-trial compliance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Faretta waiver	Waiver was not knowing because court failed to fully explain mandatory minimum stacking under §844(h)	Waiver was knowing; court explained charges, risks, and minimum (30 yrs) and defendant had counsel and competency findings	Waiver upheld — defendant substantially understood severity and range of exposure; incomplete wording about stacking did not render waiver invalid
Denial of reappointment after jury sworn	Court should have reappointed counsel when Schaefer changed his mind after jury empanelment	Reappointment would cause delay and defendant engaged in gamesmanship; standby counsel unprepared	Denial upheld — court did not abuse discretion given timing, dilatory conduct, and defendant’s insistence on proceeding to trial
Motion to compel government materials (alleged leak)	Government legal assistant formerly worked for state PD and may have leaked privileged info; defense sought materials to investigate Brady/taint	Government identified independent sources for disputed info and submitted declarations denying spillage	Denial upheld — no evidence of taint or substantial prejudice; speculative allegations insufficient
Sufficiency/statutory scope: "destructive device"	Device was simple/accidental and not a weapon; Reed-type argument that injury to maker undermines weapon finding	Device contained TATP (high explosive), was assembled and used as a weapon (threat to blow up officers)	Convictions under §921(a)(4)/§5845(f) affirmed — device falls within "bomb/destructive device" and intent/use supports verdict
Speedy Trial Act claim	Court constructively denied speedy trial by forcing counsel to proceed unprepared or defendant to waive effective representation	Trial date was preserved; delays were excluded (competency evaluations, other exclusions) and defendant repeatedly prioritized early trial	Claim fails — exclusions apply and defendant does not show improper exclusion or prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (constitutional right to self-representation)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (limits and role of standby counsel)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (competency standard for waiver of counsel)
Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (permissible to require counsel for defendants who lack capacity to conduct trial despite competency to stand trial)
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004) (pragmatic approach to Faretta waiver inquiry)
United States v. Gerritsen, 571 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2009) (framework for evaluating Faretta waivers and sentencing enhancements)
United States v. Audette, 923 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2019) (refusing rigid script for waiver; focus on record as a whole)
United States v. Farias, 618 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2010) (timeliness and elements of Faretta request)
United States v. Lussier, 128 F.3d 1312 (9th Cir. 1997) (distinction between assembled destructive devices and combinations of parts; intent element)
United States v. Hedgcorth, 873 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1989) (homemade incendiary/explosive devices can be "destructive devices")
United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1986) (continuance factors when Sixth Amendment implicated)
United States v. Danielson, 325 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard for proving prejudicial intrusion into attorney-client relationship)