United States v. Weingarten, 632 F.3d 60

Weingarten was convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of New York on two counts of transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity (18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)) and three counts of travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct (18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)).
He was sentenced to a total of 30 years’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release; the district court entered judgment May 8, 2009.
The Second Circuit subsequently reversed Count Three’s conviction based on its interpretation of § 2423(b)’s requirement to travel in foreign commerce, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that interpretation.
Weingarten challenged the district court’s handling of his right to counsel, including (a) whether his waiver and decision to proceed pro se were knowing and voluntary, and (b) whether the court abused its discretion in denying hybrid representation.
The court affirmed the remaining convictions and remanded for appropriate proceedings, noting the lack of abuse in the district court’s handling of counsel-related issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Knowingly and intelligently waived right to counsel	Weingarten claims the waiver was not knowing or intelligent.	Weingarten argues the court coerced or pressured him, undermining waiver.	Waiver found knowing and intelligent; no abuse in inquiry.
Hybrid representation denial	Weingarten sought hybrid representation to examine some witnesses pro se and others with a cross-examiner.	Court should permit hybrid representation under appropriate conditions.	District court did not abuse discretion in denying hybrid representation.

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing, intelligent waiver)
United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) (on-record colloquy to ensure knowing, intelligent waiver)
United States v. Oberoi, 547 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2008) (limits on coercive or last-minute counsel replacement)
United States v. Carreto, 583 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2009) (four-factor test for trial court’s handling of counsel requests)
United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996) (delay considerations in appointing new counsel on eve of trial)
United States v. Rosenthal, 470 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1972) (evading delay while appointing new counsel)
Wilson v. Walker, 204 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant’s alternative requests do not show equivocation)
Williams v. Bartlett, 44 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 1994) (distinguishing simultaneous requests for new counsel from actual waiver)
United States v. Tutino, 883 F.2d 1125 (2d Cir. 1989) (hybrid representation within permissible district court discretion)
Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (range of permissible decisions on defense representation)
United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Cir. 1993) (right to counsel framework and standards in the circuit)