United States v. Jason Youker, 16-30135

Background

Jason Youker was indicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin and related firearms offenses and proceeded toward trial after about a year of pretrial proceedings.
Youker sought to represent himself but the court appointed standby counsel and a court-funded private investigator; the investigator refused to work directly with Youker.
Standby counsel acted as an intermediary between Youker and the investigator and declined to relay certain investigative requests he deemed unethical or outside permissible bounds.
The government produced over 2,600 pages of discovery, delivered in seven indexed binders to the jail; Youker was given access under controlled conditions (one binder per day in a visiting booth or all binders in the law library during set hours).
On the first day of trial Youker moved for a continuance, asserting deprivation of constitutional rights and need for more preparation; the district court denied the continuance and the case proceeded to trial.
Youker appealed, arguing Sixth Amendment self-representation and due-process violations, ineffective assistance by standby counsel, improper restriction of discovery access, and abuse of discretion in denying a continuance. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Youker's Argument	Government/Court's Argument	Held
Whether appointment and active role of standby counsel (including acting as liaison) violated Faretta right to self-representation	Standby counsel’s facilitation and refusal to pass certain requests denied meaningful self-representation and due process	Court reasonably balanced pro se rights with practical needs; standby counsel’s role was permissible and aimed to overcome routine obstacles	No Sixth or Fifth Amendment violation; standby counsel’s conduct permissible
Whether refusal by standby counsel to relay investigatory requests (as ethically improper) amounted to ineffective assistance or deprived self-representation	Counsel’s refusal blocked Youker from pursuing defense investigation	Ethical limits on counsel’s conduct are proper; complying with ethical rules is not ineffective assistance	No ineffective assistance; refusal was permissible to avoid unethical requests
Whether limiting in-cell access to discovery constituted denial of constitutional access to counsel/materials	Youker argued he needed complete, unrestricted access and alternatives (redaction/computer) were feasible	Jail security and safety justified restrictions; government provided months-long access via binders and supervised review	No abuse of discretion; discovery access restrictions reasonable
Whether denial of a continuance on first day of trial was an abuse of discretion	Youker sought more time due to alleged constitutional deprivations and need to prepare	Case had been pending a year; prior continuances granted; no evidentiary support that further delay was warranted	Denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion; trial denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Savage v. Estelle, 924 F.2d 1459 (9th Cir. 1990) (courts may make procedural adjustments to help pro se defendants overcome routine obstacles)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (standby counsel’s participation may be limited but appointment does not violate Faretta absent intrusion on core self-representation rights)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (recognizes defendant’s right to self-representation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance; ethical compliance not ineffective assistance)
United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2007) (review of discovery access limitations and courts’ balancing test)
United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir. 1995) (prison security and resource constraints can justify restricted discovery access)
United States v. Wilson, 690 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1982) (when court provides constitutionally permissible assistance, defendant cannot insist on alternate method)
Milton v. Morris, 767 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir. 1985) (courts may take steps to avoid abuse by opportunistic defendants)
United States v. Thoreen, 653 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1981) (ethical standards set outer limits of appropriate attorney conduct)
United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1985) (four-factor test for reviewing denial of continuance)