United States v. Milford Clark
774 F.3d 1108
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Clark was suspected in a bank robbery after a Harvesters Credit Union visit and DNA evidence linked him to the crime scene.
- At first appearance, the magistrate judge found a valid waiver of the right to counsel for Clark, with standby counsel appointed.
- The district court later conducted a new Faretta colloquy because DNA evidence and trial complexity could affect understanding of proceeding.
- Clark initially reaffirmed self-representation but then postponed decision; ultimately he proceeded pro se and later accepted counsel before trial.
- The Harvesters incident evidence was admitted to help establish Clark’s identity; the government also introduced Bank footage and testimony.
- Clark was convicted on bank robbery and related firearm charges; on appeal he challenged the district court’s re-examination of the waiver and the 404(b) evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did district court properly revisit the waiver? | Clark | Clark | Yes; district court validly reexamined due to new DNA evidence and changed circumstances |
| Was the Harvesters evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)? | Clark | Clark | Yes; evidence supported identity and probative value outweighed prejudice (harmless error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. (1975)) (right to counsel must be knowingly and intelligently waived)
- United States v. Volpentesta, 727 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for waiving counsel; Faretta framework)
- United States v. Sandles, 23 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir. 1994) (thorough Faretta inquiry required)
- United States v. England, 507 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2007) (multiple Faretta colloquies may be appropriate)
- United States v. Oreye, 263 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2001) (limits of renewed waivers when case characteristics change)
- United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 404(b) review; harmless error analysis)
- United States v. Miller, 688 F.3d 322 (7th Cir. 2012) (harmless error when probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice)
- United States v. Robinson, 161 F.3d 463 (7th Cir. 1998) (identity evidence admissible when relevant to non-propensity purpose)