United States v. Joseph Banks
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12585
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Joseph Banks was charged with two counts of bank robbery and two counts of attempted bank robbery involving a gun in four incidents (2007–2008); jury convicted on all counts.
- Trial began in December 2012 after repeated delays largely attributable to Banks repeatedly terminating counsel; on the first day of trial he discharged his attorney and sought to proceed pro se.
- The district court conducted a Faretta colloquy, found Banks’ waiver of counsel knowing and voluntary, appointed standby counsel, and allowed Banks to proceed pro se.
- During trial Banks largely refused to participate (declined to cross-examine, present witnesses, or object), but attempted opening and closing statements; he claimed sovereign‑citizen defenses and repeatedly challenged the court’s jurisdiction.
- After conviction Banks escaped custody, was recaptured, later re‑represented, moved for a new trial (denied), and at sentencing the PSR calculated Guideline range 360–390 months; the court imposed 432 months’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Banks’ Argument | Government / District Court Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Banks knowingly and voluntarily waived right to counsel | Waiver was not valid: he did not clearly and unequivocally invoke self‑representation and was not competent to waive counsel | Court’s thorough colloquy established knowledge and voluntariness; waiver timely and allowed | Waiver was knowing and voluntary; allowing pro se representation affirmed |
| Whether the district court should have rescinded the waiver when Banks largely refused to participate | Court should have rescinded waiver because Banks’ nonparticipation undermined adversarial trial and fairness | Banks still participated intermittently (opening/closing); his silence/refusal was strategic and did not make trial impossible | No rescission required; refusal to participate did not compel denial of Faretta right |
| Whether sentencing contained procedural error for inadequate explanation or failure to consider mitigation | Sentence insufficiently justified; court did not address principal mitigation points (harsh confinement, overstated criminal history, poor self‑representation) | Court discussed violence, victims’ harm, Banks’ culpability and background, and briefly addressed mitigation; individualized assessment given | No procedural error: court adequately considered §3553(a) factors and mitigation, explanation sufficient |
| Whether the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory | Court relied on Guidelines and erred in binding itself to them | Court considered below‑Guidelines argument, imposed sentence before clarifying concurrent/consecutive counts; correction was consistent with Guidelines but did not indicate mandatory treatment | No procedural error: court did not treat Guidelines as mandatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant has right to self‑representation if waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntary)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing courts must calculate Guidelines, consider §3553(a) factors, and adequately explain the sentence)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate review accepts brief explanations when record shows reasoned basis for sentence)
- Volpentesta v. United States, 727 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2013) (four‑factor test for knowing and voluntary Faretta waiver)
- Cain v. Peters, 972 F.2d 748 (7th Cir. 1992) (silence at critical junctures can forfeit self‑representation right)
- Berry v. United States, 565 F.3d 385 (7th Cir. 2009) (trial judge may, but is not required to, deny a defendant’s request to proceed pro se)
- Brock v. United States, 159 F.3d 1077 (7th Cir. 1998) (obstructionist behavior may justify rescinding waiver when it makes trial impossible)
- Mykytiuk v. United States, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2005) (after Booker, Guidelines are advisory though many sentences still reflect Guidelines results)