United States v. Kevin Hawkins
689 F. App'x 858
9th Cir.2017Background
- Kevin Hawkins was convicted of witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(B) and appealed.
- Hawkins requested to represent himself at a Faretta hearing after having previously told the court he wanted counsel.
- The district court found Hawkins’s self-representation request equivocal and denied it, retaining appointed counsel.
- Hawkins appealed, arguing the denial violated his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the record of the Faretta hearing and determined Hawkins repeatedly and unambiguously sought to proceed pro se, having been warned of the risks.
- Because the district court clearly erred in finding the request equivocal, the Ninth Circuit vacated Hawkins’s conviction and sentence and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hawkins unequivocally requested to proceed pro se | The government argued the request was equivocal because Hawkins previously sought counsel | Hawkins argued his Faretta hearing statements made an unambiguous request to represent himself | Court held Hawkins’s request was unequivocal and the district court clearly erred in denying it |
| Whether the request was timely or for delay | Government did not assert untimeliness or bad faith | Hawkins maintained request was timely and made with eyes open | Court found request timely and not for delay |
| Whether Hawkins was informed sufficiently to waive counsel | Government implicitly contended waiver standards satisfied | Hawkins affirmed awareness of charges, penalties, and disadvantages of self-rep. | Court found Hawkins was informed as required |
| Remedy for erroneous denial of Faretta right | Government would argue harmless error or affirm conviction | Hawkins sought reversal and new trial | Court held denial is structural error, vacated conviction and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (recognizing Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
- United States v. Maness, 566 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2009) (requirements for permitting pro se representation)
- United States v. Arlt, 41 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1994) (unequivocal request standard for self-representation)
- United States v. Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) (review standard for equivocal waiver findings)
- United States v. Robinson, 913 F.2d 712 (9th Cir. 1990) (requests not to be treated as mere whim or caprice)
- United States v. Farias, 618 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se requests can follow prior representation)
- United States v. Farhad, 190 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1999) (elements of an informed waiver)
- United States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting uncertainty whether review is de novo or for abuse of discretion)