918 F.3d 712
9th Cir.2019Background
- While serving at FCI-Phoenix, Jonathan Read stabbed his cellmate multiple times and was charged with two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a) for assaults within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
- Read was initially found incompetent and committed for treatment; later evaluators concluded he was competent to stand trial, though several clinicians documented delusional beliefs and diagnoses (schizophrenia or schizotypal personality disorder, plus cannabis use disorder).
- Defense-appointed experts produced conflicting opinions about Read’s sanity at the time of the offense; defense counsel filed a notice of insanity defense and the government obtained a § 4242 examination concluding Read was not insane at the time of the assault.
- Read successfully invoked Faretta to proceed pro se and withdrew an insanity defense, expressing instead delusional or nonlegal defenses (demonic possession, conspiratorial beliefs); standby counsel warned the court about Read’s capacity to represent himself.
- The district court revoked Read’s pro se status under Indiana v. Edwards, reappointed counsel over Read’s objection, and counsel presented an insanity defense at trial; Read was convicted and sentenced. Read appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that assault occurred within federal jurisdiction | Gov: testimony from prison staff and victim sufficiently proved FCI-Phoenix is federal jurisdictional land | Read: prosecution failed to prove or allege the jurisdictional element (lack of historical documents) | Evidence and indictment adequate; testimony sufficed to prove and put notice of jurisdictional element |
| Sufficiency of indictment for omitting jurisdictional element | Gov: citation to §113(a) and jury instruction supplied notice | Read: indictment must expressly allege jurisdictional element | Indictment adequate post-trial; counsel had notice and jury was instructed |
| Whether counsel may present insanity defense over competent defendant’s objection (Sixth Amendment) | Gov: presenting insanity was proper given Read’s mental illness and best defense strategy | Read: McCoy and Faretta protect defendant’s right to choose defense; he clearly rejected insanity | Reversible error: McCoy requires honoring a competent defendant’s clear refusal of an insanity defense; new trial required |
| Whether district court properly revoked pro se status under Edwards | Gov: court permissibly reappointed counsel given Read’s bizarre behavior and mental illness | Read: revocation was erroneous and his pro se status should have been maintained | No abuse of discretion: court reasonably applied Edwards factors and could require counsel for someone with severe mental illness who cannot conduct trial proceedings |
| Speedy Trial Act dismissal claim | Gov: Read waived the claim by failing to move for dismissal before trial | Read: trial exceeded statutory time limits | Waived; defendant did not properly preserve a Speedy Trial Act dismissal motion |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018) (defendant has autonomy to decide the objective of the defense; counsel may not concede guilt over clear client objection)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation; defendant as master of his own defense)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (trial courts may require representation by counsel for defendants who are competent to stand trial but lack capacity to conduct trial proceedings)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (jury must find beyond reasonable doubt elements of offense, including jurisdictional elements)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review: whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements beyond a reasonable doubt)