United States v. Reed
668 F.3d 978
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Davis and Reed filed a false UCC-1 financing statement listing Judge Hovland and acting U.S. Attorney Jordheim as debtors, attempting to seize public officials’ property in retaliation for official duties.
- The statement described collateral including $3.4 million and other assets in incoherent, accusatory terms that referenced treaties and proclamations.
- Davis electronically filed the financing statement in D.C., creating a public record that third parties could search for adverse claims.
- Davis admitted filing the lien; Reed filed similar notices and threatened more liens.
- The jury convicted Davis and Reed of conspiring to file false liens under 18 U.S.C. § 1521; Reed was also convicted of obstructing justice under § 1503(a) based on earlier threats.
- Defense challenges include sufficiency of the evidence for § 1521 and assertions that the district court violated their rights by allowing self-representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports § 1521 conviction for a false lien | Reed and Davis filed a lien against public officials; the lien harmed duties | Lien lacked identifiable real/personal property of officials | Yes; evidence showed a lien filed on account of official duties with a false, fictitious collateral description |
| Whether the district court erred in allowing self-representation | Davis and Reed improperly represented themselves | Waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary | No; proper warnings and waiver supported self-representation |
| Whether Reed’s competency required a formal evaluation before waiver | Competency concerns so require evaluation | No showing of incompetence; Edwards not applicable | No; district court did not abuse discretion under Washington factors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ewing, 632 F.3d 412 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review in § 1521 context)
- United States v. Patterson, 140 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 1998) (waiver of right to counsel must be knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Kind, 194 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 1999) (waiver must be knowing and voluntary under Faretta framework)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (competency limits on self-representation (severity of mental illness) not general rule for all defendants)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1993) (competence to waive counsel tied to general competence to stand trial)
- United States v. Washington, 596 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2010) (three-factor test for competency determinations before self-representation)