*1 VIRGIN ISLANDS THE OF GOVERNMENT v. CHARLES, Appellant DALE 94-7638
No. of Appeals States Court United for the Third Circuit 26, 1995 December *2 W. Ronald Audrey Jennings, Attorney, United States Thomas-Francis Assistant U.S. (Argued), Appellee Attorney, for Stephen A. Brusch McKelvin, Thurston T. Defender, Federal Public Assistant Defender, Federal Public (Argued), Appellant for WEIS, Judges STAPLETON, Circuit LEWIS COURT OPINION OF THE STAPLETON, Judge: Circuit in the first for murder from convictions
Dale appeals it unlaw- with intent to use for of a knife possession degree First, Charles his convictions. challenges three fully. He raises waive his voluntarily intelligently he did not argues that court, Charles' granted a hearing, district after when the to counsel Second, Charles asserts himself trial. represent request information against court should have dismissed the district during plea negotiations conceded government him because the Third, question occurred. insane when the acts that Charles was evidence of deliberation there was insufficient claims that We will affirm. premeditation. *3 I. alley 1989, in an Francois to death In stabbed Dale May Charles was Virgin in the Islands. Francois the Island of Thomas on St. alley, the Charles when Francois entered Apparently, unarmed. and stabbed him several Francois without provocation rushed filed an information the Islands government Virgin times. The 14 first murder under V.I.C. degree Charles with charged that 922(a)(1) to use it a knife with intent possession and with § of a crime of the commission unlawfully against during Francois 2251(a)(2). under 14 V.I.C. § violence 1990, the district court persuaded In after the defense May expert, a defense Arthur guilty plea, allow withdraw a Charles M.D., Dr. Stillman, evaluation of Charles. psychiatric undertook a [Charles] that could that "it seems doubtful concluded Stillman attorney preparation presentation assist his in the adequately [and i]t that he cannot differentiate of his defenses clear quite 51-52.) addition, regarding (App. . . at In reality fantasy. from ." Francois, he Stillman opined state of mind when stabbed Charles' from state and is suffering psychotic paranoid that Charles "was a 52.) at insane at that time." In. (App. considered have been Ph.D., Morrison, a appointed 1990, court Michael W. November expert, agreed: him from mental illness that renders suffering
Mr. Charles is a of the consequences unable to understand nature to assist in his against properly him and unable proceedings [the severely mentally . Mr. was ill on defense. . . Charles offense] dangerous weapon and his use of a day of day consequence murder that was a of his mental commit illness. 65-66.)1
(App. 1991, mentally In March the district court found Charles incom- 1992, M.D., trial. December Bruce of the By Burger, to stand petent that condition had Federal Bureau of Prisons found Charles' to stand trial. In March competent stabilized that Charles 1994, Lu, M.D., a court and in Leighman appointed expert, June 1994, D., Psy. expert, agreed a defense Chiappetta, Michael competent to stand trial. Lu also found that Charles Charles was not from disorder at the time of the offense. Dr. suffering 1994, Burger reevaluated and once again found June 26, competent hearing September to stand trial. After on Jury the district court found Charles to stand trial. and the trial completed began selection was that afternoon the next day.
Apparently, point September hearing, at some before the prosecution agreement. and the defense had reached an Both would consent to a trial and parties stipulate bench would to all of Morrison, including facts of Dr. findings namely Charles' actions were the result of his mental illness. Presumably, what the had in mind was a parties finding by district court *4 reason of followed guilty by insanity, by automatic commit- ment to a psychiatric institution under 5 V.I.C. Fiad the § 3637. government dropped charges without stipulation, Charles could have been involuntarily only committed in a proceeding general under the civil commitment statute. That statute requires clear and convincing proof that the individual danger is a society,and that treatment likely to be beneficial. § 19V.I.C. 723. [1] Under them in except. Virgin consequence . . Islands persons who are law, of such “all persons mentally mental illness . . are ill and who capable . of committed the act charged against 14 V.I.C. § committing 14(4). crimes and offenses
364 however, The fell when Charles decided that agreement apart, Rather, insanity. he did not want to raise the defense of he decided prosecution, to claim self defense and demand a The jury trial. which had no burden to evidence produce regarding Charles' presented at the time of the offense until Charles first some sanity Webbe, insanity, Virgin evidence of see Government Islands v. 821 (3d 1987), 187, F.2d decided to trial. proceed 189 Cir. Charles' not, Brusch, convinced that he could on behalf of attorney, Stephen Charles, to the or raise the defense of agree stipulation insanity consent, insanity at trial without Charles' moved to dismiss the information had ground prosecution effectively on that the conceded that was insane at the time The Charles of the offense. district court concluded that Charles' mental state at the time of the jury offense was an issue for the and denied the motion. point, longer At that Charles also decided that he no wanted Brusch to represent represent him. Fie wanted to himself at trial. Charles was convinced that Brusch was hostile to the idea of Brusch, self arguing defense Charles was concerned that as an government, of the local had At the employee conflicting loyalties. 26,1994, hearing September on after to be finding compe- Charles Charles, tent to stand trial and after an extensive colloquy district court determined that knowingly intelligently right waived his to counsel. The district court granted Charles' motion to se proceed pro appointed standby Brusch as counsel to assist Charles. his case to the a two The presented jury during day trial.
jury convicted him on both counts and the district court sentenced him to life in without court had prison parole. The district jurisdiction § under have to hear jurisdiction 48 U.S.C. 1612. We this under appeal § 28 U.S.C. 1291.
I!. First, Charles that he did not and intelli argues knowingly waive his to counsel. The gently Sixth Fourteenth Amendments guarantee anyone the assistance of counsel to ac cused of a serious criminal offense. Virgin See Government (3d 1991). Islands v. F.2d Because a Cir. James, defendant represent waiving who asks to herself is the benefits
365
and because
this
constitutional
associated with
right,
important
reasonable
in
"courts [must]
against
indulge
every
presumption
Williams,
Brewer v.
430
waiver" of
constitutional
rights,
important
(1977),
424,
387, 404,
Ed.
a court cannot
L.
2d
We decide de novo whether demonstrates record waiver. United States v. 885 F.2d Velasquez, knowing intelligent *6 (3d 1989).However, 1076, between regarding colloquy Cir. 1085 court, the defendant and the the issue of whether the defendant said, misunderstood what the court the defendant's unam despite answers is a of biguous indicating comprehension, pure question conduct, demeanor, fact which on the and depends primarily intonations of the defendant. We review a on this under finding lying clearly factual issue under a erroneous standard. SeeMiller v. (1985). Fenton, 104, 112, 405, 106 474 U.S. 88 L. Ed. 2d S. Ct. 445 We findings regarding review the district court's of competency Velasquez, the defendant for clear error. United States v. 885 F.2d (3d 1989). 1076, 1089 Cir. concedes that
Charles the district court conducted a sufficient Indeed, the district court's was and inquiry. inquiry thorough However, that he was not probing. argues Charles waive the to counsel and that his answers demonstrate that he did not understand the trial court's admonitions.
A. Charles’ Competency 26, hearing day At the outset of the on before the September trial the district court determined that began, compe- Charles was tent to stand trial and thus to make all of the decisions important associated with trial. That decision was not erroneous. clearly
The finding competence district court based its of on the 26, and at the testimony September conduct 1994 11, hearing and on a written Dr. Dr. July report Burger. 1994 saw on a basis Burger regular during prior hospital 14,1994. study ization and after he was readmitted for on Dr. June Burger concluded that Charles was capable understanding and the him and had proceedings charges against ability meaningfully consult his counsel. Dr. indi Burger's report understanding cated Charles "evidenced an excellent of the roles and responsibilities of court officers as well as his own .145.) in a obligations rights court situation." He was (App. alert fully oriented at all times. His abilities were in cognitive the low an average range for adult. Charles suffered from chronic and had intermittent severe paranoid schizophrenia experienced in the but his currently schizophrenia past, episodes psychotic Charles showed no in remission. schizophrenia symptoms asked each side the district court medication. When was not taking Dr. reached in to contest conclusions whether it wished do so. nor his counsel neither Charles sought Burger's report, half two and one mindful that Dr. We are Burger's report took when the months old place September hearing were We at the that some of Charles' responses hearing rambling.2 *7 2 Forexample: Now, . . ? more than counsel. you competent
THE do think are why you COURT: Honor, I'm if I tell that. incompetent, you Your think you might CHARLES: Pardon? THE COURT: said, me might I consider might say you, right, you I for what to CHARLES:
incompetent. said, I do more than you I that. think are why you THE COURT: didn't say counsel. said, I am would make think that maybe you I answer to my you CHARLES: incompetent. Well, hear answer. your THE let me COURT: know, was, Honor, Well, and there up, my family, you growing CHARLES: your — that, a of Mr. descendants once where Brusch's things people and like fightings husband, old child with mother's and fight my sixteen year fourteen old child or a year us, which in were also the ones anything, they the do police, no one tried to assist call removed the from the gun place. don't, I am through, I I am what going through, going So I sure what don't know for all of these that happened me has exposing things Mr. Brusch in favor of is not why [sic], unconcern, Islands, know. inconcern you here in The of the because government's hurt to by having where now someone is me And I have been the to activities, pushed point me, been Police be I've Department might saying and all the protect criminal in, framed, I did would I did that I the witnesses say things involved be would do. words, [of You want to stipulation insanity]. THE In don't want COURT: other you me. to trial. That's are go telling what you mean, too, pay. but still I want make them CHARLES: I want stipulation, out, Carolina, by and I out winning, get going out North get if I don't anything States, life live the rest of my prison, okay I be in United if I have to that's even know, are because the law they supposed uphold me. But I want them now, you to punish, — man is the white Everything not favoring nobody. 232-33, 248-48a.) at (App. were whole as a however, responses that Charles' say,
cannot The and opinions. observations Burger's with Dr. inconsistent hearing day first-hand observed Charles the. court district to observe best position was in the began the trial before whether a state, and determine Charles, mental evaluate second-guess We decline necessary. follow-up evaluation determination. court's the district Concerning Responses of Counsel the Assistance
B. Charles’ were questions district court's to the responses Charles' to assistance waiver of the that his to demonstrate sufficient Considering Charles' intelligent. knowing and of counsel education, court the district and limited mental illness history of thorough was especially an inquiry conducted appropriately probing. purpose understood First, sure that Charles court made hearing: of the here to through procedure Now, going I am
THE COURT: the conse- understand fully you whether or not determine *8 the represen- with proceed desire to your expressed quences — of yourself tation Yes,sir.
CHARLES: — and voluntarily doing that you and that are THE COURT: understand that? youDo intelligently. Yes,sir, very intelligently.
CHARLES: 227.) at (App. his with he was dissatisfied why
Next, asked Charles the court that was concerned that he made clear counsel. Charles appointed self arguing idea of to the was hostile counsel appointed his context, incoherent. As were not in even these responses when read rambling, Although had and police government he felt that hearing, throughout expressed "make them pay" wanted to in and he his family past, him and mistreated "[E]ven the risks: the story despite to tell his side of Charles wanted this at trial. exposing 248-48a.) at with me." (App. in that's okay life prison, I the rest my if have spend was not know that he public he wanted and that defense insane: upon Honor, is based dissatisfaction my Your CHARLES: prison with doctors and speaking and in the United States being nature of the offense heard the that has people and other officials totally disagreement committed, in they are why it are They it, I cannot win. that way handling Mr. Brusch's with why any defense, see they don't upon my based stating that what it is based it. And that is presenting would resist attorney upon. owe no who I don't public,
Also, interest of to the do, I went to school you know. I think I but still explanation, heard, "Well, that, Mr. here, like have things and teachers murder, think Mr. Charles they charged Charles is — explanation I owe them an that. I think and" this and crazy different to who anybody I am doubt that their mind of clear known before. they have
* * * case. side of the my never seen has [My attorney]
CHARLES: saying. you're Well, that's what I understand THE COURT: saying, are you what I also understand from apparently, But the observation you, he, made of representing in the course follow, in willing are you the procedure you what you Isn't that best interest. your could not be opinion, are me? telling — might be, hurt it it might might Yes. ... It
CHARLES: run, but it's in the best long me, in the it hurt me hamper might interest, present. what I want to of my 227-29.) (App. that he was understood sure that Charles the court made
Next *9 an attorney: not as as competent Well, are not as you realize that certainly, you
THE COURT: be, proce- as the rules of would insofar lawyer as a —dure Yes.
CHARLES: — raised meeting and in terms of issues THE COURT: Do with that statement? government. you agree Brusch] [Mr. Yes, to sit but that's what I would like CHARLES: there for. Pardon?
THE COURT: that I don't government issue that the raises Any CHARLES: understand, him there for. He is that's what I'm to have going me. to work for going words, you but are you're lawyer, THE In other COURT: — to turn to him to assist
going you something. CHARLES:When don't understand 231.) at (App. govern- understood the the court established that Charles
Next at proof ment's burden of trial: and re- obligation
THE . .It's the government's COURT: . and, a reasonable doubt you guilty beyond sponsibility prove therefore, disprove anything. are not or you required prove Do understand that? you I think I do. Yes I understand that.
CHARLES: 234.) (App. the nature of the court made sure that Charles understood
Next against him and of his defense: charges Now, do understand the nature of right. you THE COURT:All you? the charges against Yes,sir.
CHARLES: with? you charged THE COURT:What are degree First murder. CHARLES:
THE whom? COURT:Of
CHARLES:Mr. Dale Francois. to that is? your
THE COURT:And defense My actions was done in self-defense. CHARLES: *10 what self- And understand right. you All THE COURT: means? defense comes first. Preservation
CHARLES:Yes. Pardon?
THE COURT: Preservation, first. comes self-preservation CHARLES: Now, any reading done you have right. THE All COURT: area? the law in this with in the United paralegals I have been
CHARLES:What bit, I haven't done much learned a little but and I have States about it. reading them? the case with you But have discussed
THE COURT: Yes,sir. CHARLES: any cases any legal read decisions or you
THE COURT:Have on the subject? here investigation Well, A little bit of really.
CHARLES: know, my there, that, pertinent presenting it was you through those books go But I don't even think I have to case. this case. win 234-35.)
(App. was aware of the that Charles the court made sure Next insanity: possibility pleading too, Now, Mr. Brusch has you recognize,
THE COURT: an or a mental insanity respect asserting talked with you illness defense? Yes,
CHARLES: sir. have that? you rejected THE And COURT: Yes, sir. CHARLES: too, understand, have also that there you
THE And COURT: discussions, today, in the earlier you argument been as heard — an or agreement could have about brought that would findings? the matter to the Court for present stipulation Yes, sir. CHARLES: npt acceptable, And those are not
THE COURT: *11 is that correct? acceptable you; them with. on the are grounds they presenting
CHARLES:Not be accept would would only thing you THE The COURT: the case with prejudice? a dismissal of Yes sir. CHARLES: 238-39.) at
(App. that he would the court made sure that Charles understood Next with the Federal Rules of conformity conduct the case in have to Procedure, and that he Federal Rules of Evidence and the Criminal issues: evidentiary the court's role regarding understood are to have you going THE . . . You also realize that COURT: Rules of in the course of the Federal your to conduct defense Do understand that? you Evidence and Criminal Procedure? Well, about that really part. I know CHARLES: Well, to have to do that. going are you THE COURT: — Well, are the know being you judge, you CHARLES: telling you. tables on me. I'm just THE Don't turn the COURT: — right. All I CHARLES: I'll take care of responsibilities.
THE These are your COURT: my responsibilities^ Yes,
CHARLES: sir. I want your responsibilities. THE Youhave to assume COURT: them. you to make aware of — you I I aware of what only thing The don't am
CHARLES: is, know, be might what saying you but what I am saying, are to my be prosecution, right, might pertinent inadmissible to the then, be one would be left with the you would defense. So there. decision rule, government goes No, will if the only
THE COURT: it, I evidence, an objection if there is enters certain ahead and ruling. make a will right. All
CHARLES: a ruling. no I will make If there is objection, THE COURT: All sir. right, CHARLES: 239-40.)
(App. Next, that he under- Charles demonstrated telling colloquy, attorney an and that he knowledge stood that he lacked However, he was willing his case. might that this hurt aware that risk: take an you Now, objection, in order make
THE COURT: *12 of the Federal Rules understanding have some certainly have to Now, present- may hampered be you Procedure. of Criminal law, knowledge lack of by your defense ing your best may well be dimin- defense certainly your effectiveness the. lawyer you as a and the accused. Do by your dual role ished. that? understand to take. going Yes. the chance I have That's
CHARLES: are chances. Those
* * * all well aware of these you. All So that are right.
THE COURT: that want to you you proceed when tell the Court problems, defense. your conduct own Yes,sir.
CHARLES: you fully problems THE And understand COURT: will arise? No, sir.
CHARLES: the problems? THE COURT:You don't understand but fully All understand? Not problems, fully, CHARLES: — go THE Well ahead: COURT: — basically, CHARLES: I do proceedings. understand the But [sic] I cannot understand of thinks fully that I know nothing about. Well, sir,
THE COURT: tell certainly you, you are better having off counsel represent But seem you fully. you to be intent on representing yourself; is that correct? Yes,
CHARLES: sir. THE COURT:And that Mr. only position Brusch's will be that — of standby counsel Yes,
CHARLES: sir. —
THE COURT: is that correct? CHARLES:Due to the fact that he does not want to present defense that I want present. 240-43.)
(App. at When Charles explained that he did fully trial, understand all of the problems not, that could arise at he was argues, as Charles demonstrating a lack of understanding of the risks of representing himself. the contrary, On his explanation showed a lucid understanding the fact that he was not an attorney and could not anticipate every single problem that could arise. Faretta does not a defendant require to be able to anticipate the details of every single problem that could self-representation standard, cause. Were this the it would all but preclude anyone without a law from degree to counsel. waiving
Finally,the court made sure that Charles understood the penalty if he were convicted: All, Now, too,
THE COURT: right. not, you recognize, do you is, that the penalty here if the jury does find you guilty of first murder, degree choice, the Court has no no leeway, the Court is compelled to sentence you to life in prison without Do parole? you understand that? Yes,
CHARLES: sir. And I that the hope Court will also send me to an education, American where prison, I can further my get Thomas, out here, of St. due to the fact that I can't trust no one not even to represent me in court. here, Well, that, do because in sentences can't
THE COURT: of you custody will be to the you guilty, if are found sentenced Corrections, is determined. of for whatever sentence the Bureau what it wants of to determine It to the Bureau Corrections upis [sic] I don't your will serve sentence. you to in terms of where to control that. citizen, Virgin not a Islander. States I am United
CHARLES: in You could be It doesn't make difference. THE COURT: there, you if were so guilty found of murder Yugoslavia and of Yugosla- found, under the laws you prison would be sent to via. Yes,sir.
CHARLES: here, to a you prison as are are sent you THE COURT:Just Islands. Virgin the laws of the Government of under 244-45.) (App. that made his decision indicate responses
Charles' Despite, rambling wide a few open. with his represent eyes himself answers, that understood the unambiguously indicated he as we could of him. He expect as well self-representation risks of his He knowledge could hurt case. legal was aware that his lack to life prison. was that if convicted he would be sentenced aware Yet, He story. believed that Mr. he wanted to tell side argue insanity. Brusch wanted Brusch would not because Mr. he comprehended that Charles what The district court believed was far told. first-hand and in a being It observed Charles answers, including the ones better than we evaluate his position clearly not in which he rambled. Its evaluation was erroneous. however, our vantage point, given questions Even from above, we answers we have believe one could conclude quoted prepared to understand unless one were Charles failed As have incapable understanding. we conclude he indicated, however, Burger's the district court credited Dr. opinion him proceedings against that Charles was able understand the finding clearly and that was not erroneous.
376 Waiver Knowing Intelligent C. findings factual the district court's accept accordingly
We
that he understood
trial and
to stand
was
Charles
findings
on those
the court. Based
by
to him
conveyed
information
record, we conclude that Charles'
review of
independent
intelligent.
knowing
was
to counsel
waiver of
III.
the conviction
Next,
we should reverse
argues
Charles
the government
him because
against
the information
dismiss
As we
of the offense.
at the time
that he was insane
conceded
of the issue
exception
with the
argument,
understand Charles'
below,
acknowledges
address
which we
premeditation
verdict of
to return a
jury
for the
was sufficient evidence
that there
conces-
Nonetheless,
alleged
of the
light
government's
guilty.
inherently
aside the government's
sion,
asks us to set
with the prosecution.
to continue
discretionary decision
has
cause
probable
the prosecutor
so
as
system,
long
"In our
an offense defined
committed
that the accused
to believe
generally
. . .
prosecute
statute,
whether or not to
the decision
357, 364, 54
Hayes,
v.
434 U.S.
Bordenkircher
rests in his discretion."
(1978).
can a court
604,
in rare cases
Only
Ed. 2d
There is no claim of our intervention. here, warrant else that would nothing and we see that he was conceded government claims that While Charles record. offense, this mischaracterizes time of the insane at the government negotiations, point during It true that at one that Charles conclusion to Dr. Morrison's stipulate prepared *15 However, was stipulation this at the time of the offense. insane trial the raising to a bench consenting on conditioned Charles under 5 defense, to a commitment thus himself insanity exposing agreement, to consent the Because Charles refused §V.I.C. 3637. by proposed stipulation. not bound the government the do is the asking prevent is us to Essentially what Charles prosecuting the attor- from him because government prosecuting he was reason have believed that innocent ney may subjectively however, for proposition cites no the insanity. authority, of may be overturned valid criminal conviction that an otherwise the the belief prosecuting subjective regarding based on attorney's none, and we own has revealed of the accused. Our search guilt decline to endorse that novel proposition.3
IV. evidence Finally, asserts there insufficient a that he committed deliberate jury for the to conclude the review of of killing. insufficiency We a claim premeditated determine under a substantial evidence standard. We evidence that, when in whether there substantial evidence viewed is would a rational government, most favorable to the allow light (3d 155, 157 Aguilar,843 trier of fact to convict. UnitedStatesv. Cir.), F.2d (1988). denied, cert. U.S. 488 924 distinguishes 14 of the Islands Code Virgin Section 992 of Title manner: degree following between first and second murder in in lying means of perpetrated by poison, murder which... is "All willful, wait, torture other of deliberate and by any or kind is the first . . . All killing degree. ... murder in premeditated As this other kinds of murder are murder in the second degree." Roldan, Virgin Islands v. 612 explained court in Government of (3d 1979), a of can F.2d Cir. brief moment deliberation suffice: premeditate killing plan or design
To to conceive which planned kill. ... A deliberate is one has been killing 3 is, course, not had an that Charles attorney It clear that the affirmative belief prosecuting She believed a litigable was insane the time of the crime. well have that this was may that, that the would result might given stipulation issue be lost and the fact commitment, were better elsewhere. Charles' resources invested government's in a cool and is committed by the accused upon
and reflected by just blood, engendered not in sudden passion of the state however, that the It is not required, . . . provocation. cause kill entertained over his or plan shall have brooded accused Although time. the mental period of it for considerable a brief killing, take place prior involved must processes fixed, to form a deliber- thought may be sufficient moment *16 ate to kill. ... design matter, generally addition, can be premeditation a practical
In as by circumstantial evidence: proved only [Sjince [the wholly subjec- are processes] defendants mental If prove directly. premedi- to them possible tive it is seldom the objec- be inferred from ordinarily tation is found it must to intend all the presumed sane man is Every tive facts. his deliber- flowing from consequences natural and probable act, does an the voluntarily . . . if one Accordingly, ate acts. destroy another's of which is to tendency direct and natural inferred, life, of evidence to the may fairly be in the absence it life was intended. of that other's that the destruction contrary, Id. case, which the jury evidence from ample
In this there was An eyewit and premeditation. could have inferred deliberation (1) Francois alley was in the when sitting testified that Charles ness (2) Francois, it; grabbed and rushed at rose entered Charles dreadlocks, with a repeatedly and stabbed him Francois by (3) the knife; was provocation the attack there no preceding and two. admitted conversation between the victim or three stab report The coroner's indicated Francois unarmed. no to the chest. There was a fatal stab wound including wounds of initiated in the heat that the attack was suggesting evidence passion. immediately after fact that rushed at Francois
The of deliber- finding the does not a alley preclude Francois entered can be thought A brief moment premeditation. ation the absence of of a knife and sufficient. Based on use Charles, the could jury of emotion by or provocation display moment, Charles, formulated in this brief infer reasonably kill Francois. intent to deliberate
V. reasons, judgment will affirm the we foregoing For the district court.
CONCURRENCE Judge,concurring. LEWIS,Circuit which through us with a window case presents
This difficult decision Supreme Court's effects of view the real-world (1993), it is 321, 113 Moran, 2d S. Ct. 2680 L. Ed. v. Godinez before the district hearing at a behavior sight. not a Charles' pretty delusions paranoid prone doubt that he court left little deter However, has Supreme Court because was unstable. knowingly required standard competency that the mined same as that counsel is the one's voluntarily waive him or trial and to represent to stand for a defendant required judgment herself, concur with I am compelled *17 why disagree to explain I write separately majority. this case. are bound in reasoning we in is holding Court's Godinez Supreme the heart of the At his or her to conduct competence that a defendant's conclusion of whether such to a determination defense is "not relevant" own waive his or intelligently and knowingly to person competent a conclusion this supporting to counsel. The rationale right her marginally bemay who reality persons a in which presupposes a waiver of counsel get through to barely competent and sane cases. their own capable trying are nonetheless hearing Justice dissent, of the Blackmun, the wisdom questioned insightful in an a defen- the irrelevance of regarding conclusion majority's Godinez to defend him or herself: competence dant's must who waives counsel that a defendant It is obvious utterly incapa- who is . And a defendant himself. . represent be considered own defense cannot ble of his conducting decision, person more that a a to make such "competent" that he can in the belief to out of a window leap who chooses a choice. to make such fly competent can be considered (Blackmun, dissenting). Godinez, J., 2d L. Ed. at 343 case, the record that Charles clear from abundantly In this it is has had This man to his own defense. conduct competent was Indeed, it that appears mental illness. history of a well documented counsel, valid defense possibly to reject waive Charles' decision been of mental may product itself have on his own proceed found Charles expert In a court appointed illness. November pro of the consequences to the nature and "unable understand defense his properly him and unable to assist ceedings against observation, under remained App. hospitalized, ." He . . 65-66. later, two years experts Four to receive treatment. and continued to mentally that Charles concluded separately suffered from concluded that Charles expert stand trial. One expert was in remission. This but paranoid schizophrenia, chronic of schizophrenia no signs determined that showed also Charles Nevertheless, at the at 147. taking App. was not medication. whether was aware to determine colloquy district court's knowingly" waiving his "voluntarily that he was counsel, that was afraid that indicated he repeatedly Islands, Islands, Virgin the citizens of the of the Virgin Government him.1 His against para his were attorney conspiring defense an that he is juncture behavior at this critical revealed noid incoherent, who remains delusional prone periods individual out, true, that at times Judge points It is as thought. Stapleton responses lucid in his the district Charles was and coherent However, his delusional statements demonstrate questions. court's questions s were seemingly responses coherent court7 at the capacity. Certainly, of his overall mental hardly indicative least, he sad exposed his delusional tendencies fact very his own effectively conduct defense. utterly incompetent *18 that if he agreed the district court asked Charles whether he understood example, 1 For when facts, of on the court insanity stipulated might to the defense of not reason guilty by for with the find him of mental illness and commit him evaluation not reason guilty to Charles society, of a return possibility responded: honor, them, me they the with all of afraid of for what thing right, they Your whole . the all they have — me . . about the thing government, prosecutor, done to The whole — me but the not haven't done they physically anything the prosecutor, really, itself, of of me. government, is afraid at 246. App. competent to a defendant is agree merely
I because cannot to as counsel, act competent or she is also a he waive fortiori, to me that a case, it seems obvious to the for try counsel and to is of waive counsel competence to a determination prerequisite is actually of to which one degree evaluation the searching a in The Court .try Supreme and to one's case. capable competent intelligent waiver ends suggests knowing that a Godinez the rational, logical, is everything as if else that follows inquiry, is, think, person a again, I that whether presumed. reasonable in part upon fact, waive whether competent depends to counsel herself, and that these or to him or competent represent he she is separately must be evaluated. The are two distinct issues which former, any and there are number obviously latter is relevant to this point. of cases which unique types prove of issues to different assume, a charged with example, Let's for had intricate and tax fraud counts which taken complex series of to involved two hundred thousand years investigate, three had documents, a pages required appointment special had expertise with in this Under the prosecutor considerable area. to reasoning, Courf s all of this is "not relevant" whether Godinez words, to In other it competent Charles was waive counsel. doesn't obviously actually repre- matter that Charles is himself; is he is lucid only question enough sent whether right make and to waive his through colloquy it counsel. So is, Court, long according ready he he is and able to try as all, because, deeper case. There is no need to look after during punctuate Charles was able to his random incoher- colloquy ences a few apparent lucidity moments of and to answer the This, Court, according to the questions satisfactorily. auto- and, fit to matically renders him his murder case try presumably, case, would him try have rendered fit to tax fraud hypothetical too. always hardly The result almost It is preordained. end then, that surprising, similarly others many situated — might insanity some of whom have reasonable defenses or other — pursue up avenues of defense to wind on usually either death serving row or life sentences. these,
In cases such as that the trial be judge should believe further; required to go conduct another competency evaluation
(cid:127)382 *19 herself, or him a to determine defendant's to represent capacity both to the various characteristics unique weighing including his or her A who waives Sixth and to the case. defendant defendant left not be naked to counsel should Amendment unpro right the of Four The Due Process Clause the Constitution. tected the from to Amendment teenth prevent government supposed that to a fails a criminal conviction through procedure obtaining Court has of law. The meet standards of due Supreme process with offense a defendant a serious that "unless charged recognized and substantive safe has able to invoke the counsel procedural risk of of a serious that our distinguish system justice, guards a When obtains criminal infects the trial itself. a State injustice trial, a it is the that unconstitution conviction such State through U.S. the defendant of his Evitts v. 469 Lucey, liberty." ally deprives 821, (1985), 387, v. 396, L. 2d Ct. 83 Ed. 105 S. 830 Cuyler quoting, (1980). 333, 100 335, 343, Sullivan, Ed. 2d S. Ct. 1708 446 U.S. 64 L. own does not a acts as his or her counsel The fact that defendant alter the nature of his or her due rights. process in Godinez
But it would the Court ignored appear afforded to a defendant fundamental due protections process trial, or her of whether he or she has waived his Sixth regardless Godinez, like After defendants Amendment counsel. right Charles, their who have waived voluntarily right knowingly themselves, counsel, are alone their to defend left in efforts Nevertheless, do because I am of their so. regardless competency Godinez, The vote with the district bound to follow must majority. stand trial and court determined that Charles The waived his to counsel. that he knowingly voluntarily evaluate mental district court was in a better Charles' position understood the state and to discern whether Charles implications his own The court conducted its defense. presenting colloquy v. 422 U.S. accordance Faretta requirements California, 806, 562, (1975), L. Ed. 2d S. and found 95 Ct. 2525 met standard for There is Godinez competence. simply in the record to disturb this enough finding.
This case immense highlights responsibility placed upon In district court a Faretta Government conducting hearing. (3d 1991), v. we Islands 934 F.2d 471-73 Cir. James, Virgin "make must conducting hearing court a Faretta determined that a *20 to determine whether thorough penetrating inquiry and charges, range the nature of defendant understands defenses, that technical problems punishment, potential possible encounter, to a any important and other facts may the defendant of the involved." Given understanding risks general competency that a defendants Court has determined Supreme whether a not relevant to his or her own defense is conduct right waived her voluntarily has and his or knowingly defendant counsel, in ought particularly vigilant courts to be district is exactly he or she that a defendant understands what assuring The and in hearing, in a in this case waiving hearing. Faretta Faretta cases, procedural safeguard was and will be the last many future defendant who mentally "competent" to a unstable but available her own effectively try he or she can his or mistakenly believes case. and long recognized
The has that the Sixth Supreme Court that a to trial guarantee person brought Fourteenth Amendments to the right state or federal court must be afforded the he or can be validly assistance counsel before she convicted 335, Wainwright, v. SeeGideon 372 U.S. punished imprisonment. (1963); 799, Zerbst, 458, v. L. Ed. 2d Ct. 792 304 U.S. 9 83 S. Johnson (1938); 45, Alabama, Ed. v. L. S. Ct. 1019 Powell 287 U.S. 82 58 (1932). 158, 53 Ed. its Through holdings 77 L. S.Ct. 55 in Faretta Godinez, way has defined this in such a Court us allow a delusional defendant to elect requires paranoid, trial, defense, pursue an ill-advised represent himself ultimately be sentenced to life That this result is imprisonment. constitutionally disturbing ultimately permissible deeply Godinez, system." of our criminal "impugns integrity justice (Blackmun, J., L. Ed. 2d at dissenting). 344