*1 PER CURIAM: Langs, appointed
Stephen J. crim- in this direct Coach
Yanique Chantel from to withdraw has moved appeal,
inal appellant representation
further to Anders pursuant
filed brief Califor-
nia, independent re- Our that coun- reveals of the entire record
view of the relative merit assessment
sel’s independent correct. Because appeal of the entire record reveals
examination merit, motion counsel’s
arguable issues GRANTED, Coach’s
to withdraw is AFFIRMED.
conviction and sentence Leroy MOODY, Jr.,
Walter
Petitioner-Appellant,
COMMISSIONER, DE- ALABAMA CORRECTIONS,
PARTMENT OF
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-11809 Appeals,
United States Court
Eleventh Circuit.
(March 16,
803
murders. The
state
followed the
jury’s recommendation and sentenced Mr.
Moody to death. The Alabama Court of
affirmed,
Appeals
Criminal
and the Ala
bama
Court denied certiorari.
(Ala.
Moody State,
See
Following
post-
the denial
state
motion,
State,
conviction
see
(Ala.
2011),
App.
So.3d 827
Mr. Moody
Cr.
Borelli, Spencer
Hahn,
E.
Jay
Anne
sought
corpus relief pursu-
federal habeas
Palombi,
John Anthony
Federal Defender
§
ant to 28
After
rejected
U.S.C. 2254.
we
Inc.,
AL,
Program,
Montgomery,
Walter
Moody’s
that all judges in
contention
Jr., Atmore, AL,
Leroy Moody,
for Peti-
had to
Eleventh Circuit
recuse from
tioner-Appellant
§his
see In re
proceedings,
Moody,
Houts,
Roy
Henry
Johnson,
James
M.
(11th
2014),
Alabama jury indicted Mr. (for
on two counts of murder Vance) of Judge death and one count of (for degree injuries assault “The the first Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments wife). Judge guarantee per- suffered Vance’s our Constitution that a represented brought himself his state son to trial in state federal trial, place took October must be afforded to the charged before he guilty found and assistance of counsel can be validly by impris- of death for punished recommended sentence convicted and deny 1. Because we Sixth not address the state’s exhaustion ar- merits, 2254(b)(2). gument. Amendment claim on we need See 28 U.S.C. dangers.” United States California, 422 attendant v. Gar Faretta v.
onment.” (11th ey, banc). (en “right to the assistance This implicitly embodies a correlative *3 II lawyer’s Id. right help.” dispense to with 814, (quotation marks at appeal, Moody In not his direct omitted). 832-38, id. See also at citation challenge per- trial court’s decision to the self-repre- (grounding to S.Ct. at trial pursu- mit him to himself Amendment). sentation in the Sixth however, did, argue ant to He Faretta. “manages refusing his own de- trial court erred
A who defendant him, of relinquishes, purely grant voir dire examination ... factual after fense begun, jurors a 12- 18-month matter, many of the traditional benefits had could right to Id. that he obtain the counsel[.]” with the continuance so associated result, attorneys As services of new who at 2525. two had S.Ct. expressed representing must be an interest him. waiver propriety In of voluntary, intelligent.” analyzing Iowa the trial “knowing, continuance, 1379, court’s the Ala- Tovar, denial (citation omitted). Appeals bama of Criminal sua Court of sponte Moody The “should be made examined whether Mr.’ had defendant aware requesting con- disadvantages self-rep- prior of waived dangers and resentation, that “if so that the estab- tinuance. It reasoned [Mr.] record will right to validly lish never his doing is and his waived counsel— knows Faretta, eyes open.” at had arrived without [he] choice is made with having protections of (quotation been afforded the full at S.Ct. 2525 U.S. omitted). marks and citation Sixth Amendment—it have been error the trial have com- of there “The determination whether proceedings menced have re- intelligent has been an quired proceed through [Mr.] case, upon depend, each counsel must the aid of a lawyer.” without facts and circumstances particular 888 So.2d case, including surrounding that the back- Appeals ground, began by Court of Criminal experience, conduct Zerbst, thoroughly recounting the events “that cul- Johnson accused.” Moody’s proceeding L.Ed. 1461 minated in [Mr.] every pre- through the aid of indulge trial without a law- “[C]ourts reasonable his yer.” Id. 546. “first ex- sumption against waiver” and “do presume proceed pro in the of fun- acquiescence pressed loss his desire se marks, July 25, rights.” (quotation motion on after damental Id. filed footnotes, lack of unambiguous confi- and citations Never- asserted an theless, performance for a of his court- possible “it is dence valid waiver 554. only coop- appointed attorneys.” Id. at his counsel to occur when After request granted se affirmatively proceed his was erative defendant invokes self-representation, hearing but also when an uncooperative rejects Appeals the Criminal found Mr. “stead- fastly proceed pro his only counsel to which he constitutional- reaffirmed desire se, entitled, first ly understanding day until the end of the his alter- toward 556. self-representation many voir dire Id. at native with its examination.” Appeals As the Court Criminal ex- new counsel to him. But plained, “lengthy the trial court held two requested “never appoint- colloquies” Moody—one with Mr. on Au- ment counsel or new indicated that he 2,1994, 7,1996— May another gust obtained had somehow counsel on his “during it explicitly [Mr.] warned Id. own.” Moody of perils going forward with- its review of Based counsel,” inquiries multiple out made was “confident proceedings course of de- over ... [Mr.] when Moody asserted “standing whether termine self-representation, he knew what pro se.” Id. lay sum, ahead him.” Id. In Mr, It Moody— 554-56. noted that *4 Moody’s rights fully “Faretta were vindi- in party legal had been a 63 other
who in proceedings cated that up led (civil criminal) proceedings and had trial.” Id. proceeded pro part se for or all of about 35 proceedings—was of those “not a novice.” Ill
Id. 555. Court of Appeals assumed reviewing “In the district court’s denial Moody’s original that motivation § 2254 petition, 28 U.S.C. we review moving to proceed pro se was dissatisfac- questions of law and questions mixed performance appointed tion with of his novo, de findings law and fact of fact counsel, but nonetheless that concluded Gulliver, Ferguson for clear error.” Moody’s requests proceed pro se (11th F.3d Cir. (quota regardless clear unequivocal remained omitted). tions and citations Whether attorneys’ alleged inadequacies. of his validly defendant has waived the expressed id. It observed Mr. Moody mixed counsel is a of law fact. question equivocation pretrial proceed- in the some Fitzpatrick Wainwright, standby ings “around whether desired 1057, 1063(11th 1986). Cir. capacity counsel and the in which Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective serve,” standby counsel but found would 1996, however, Penalty Death Act “both “[ultimately, Moody expressly [Mr.] district court’s review and our review standby coun- stated want deferential.]” is greatly circumscribed and is highly “equivo- Id. 555 n.22. no sel.” There was Head, Craw amounting ford cation waiver withdrawal (11th 2002) (citation 1288, 1295 omit of counsel assertions at [Mr.] ted). grant may relief to habeas pretrial hearings of the some adjudication if the Sixth being forced se because by claim Amendment the Alabama Court (according Moody) [Mr.] Appeals of Criminal a decision “resulted provide adequate de- with could to, contrary or that was involved unrea im- payment under the limitations fense of, application clearly sonable established posed by statutory scheme Alabama’s law, Federal Id. determined appointed Su compensating counsel.” States,” preme “Each an as- United making time after such sertion, “resulted in a decision that was based questioned when [Mr.] court, of the facts his desire to an unreasonable determination reaffirmed Significantly, light presented himself.” Id. evidence proceeding.” sev- State U.S.C. advised desired, 2254(d)(l)-(2). if he eral occasions they together first two because “contrary to” bine the A court’s decision state interrelated. if it either federal law clearly established govern- from the a rule different “applies Supreme Court’s] in [the forth
ing law set A differently cases,” a case or “if it decides Moody, emphasizing on a Supreme Court] ha[s] than [the done every pre indulge must reasonable facts.” courts indistinguishable materially set of against the Cone, sumption Bell v. Zerbst, (citation counsel, see 152 L.Ed.2d of Criminal says the Court
omitted). unreasonably ap- A state presumption actually applied federal law clearly established plies starters, disagree. For legal favor waiver. We governing “correctly identifies that the scenario here does deci- note Court’s] we principle from [the single con merely involve the waiver it to the unreasonably applies sions but (citation the assertion right, but rather Id. stitutional particular case.” facts (the right of of Sixth Amendment application one “An unreasonable self-representation) and the correlative from an incorrect is different federal law *5 of another Sixth Amendment v. waiver law.” application federal Woodford counsel). (the Marshall 19, 25, to Visciotti, 123 S.Ct. 537 U.S. (2002) Rodgers, marks (quotation 154 L.Ed.2d also Cross L.Ed.2d citation (11th States, United courts by state “Factual determinations necessarily (“self-representation correct absent clear presumed are [S]ixth [A]mend the waiver entails contrary, to the convincing evidence counsel”). recognize to ment 2254(e)(1), adjudicated on § and decision five-year pre-trial extensive portions on a in a state and based
the merits light most if read in the favorable not be over- determination will factual Moody, might give pause some to Mr. us grounds objective- on factual turned unless exercising review of a plenary we were light of the ly in evidence unreasonable appeal claim direct Amendment Sixth proceeding, presented the state-court not But we are from a federal conviction. Cockrell, 2254(d)(2)[.]” Miller-El analysis conducting an unfettered such Instead, reviewing the deci here. we (citation omitted). Appeals un of Criminal sion deference, makes a AEDPA and that der IV difference. to his “Motion Defend Moody filed that the Alabama Mr. contends attorneys, Rich- after his Pro shortly committed a Se” Turberville, L. Dan moved First, ard S. Jaffe and argues that
number of he errors. differ- on irreconcilable against to withdraw based apply presumption failed sought Second, he In his motion Mr. ences. to counsel. all the facts his absolute defend says “exercise[] that it failed to review that, Third, requested “[i]f He se[.]” circumstances involved. attorney fit an to advise appoint sees maintains that it failed to consider Rule Crimi- [of [Alabama] defendant under legal discuss court’s misstatements. We 6.1(b),” below, someone nal be Procedure] but com- challenges of these each normally Bir- MOODY: what I practice who did That’s want. courts.2
mingham you, COURT: Not sir. followed, on hearing At the No, MOODY: sir. explained “really Now, COURT: I you want I don’t my that I allowed to motion was be any misunderstandings have myself pro upon my se sent based absolute on that. do so. And that the court Now, say do I. MOODY: Neither when I attorney an to assist me.” I I want to myself, explained times that several charge to be in want strate- attorney entitled to or to I gy, want to charge himself, but he was organizing theory hybrid entitled representation with defense. attorney acting as his In re- co-counsel. n Yes, COURT: I sir. that. understand sponse, said “want[ed] am trying to explain What being record as to be lead is, you you do that will “living case” because he been th[e] by yourself. years with” case four knew and how to facts uncover fabricated evi- Right. MOODY: explained dence. going COURT: If you’re have a law- proceed pro se but with assistance yer, lawyer will be in “co-counsel” follows: charge of that. So, I need be—to have—to be Sir, I MOODY: realize position say this is we need certainly—or COURT: You he can provide with the can, *6 you certainly them and information that he needs to do it.... I know, you among your- talk for to plan attorney my be liaison selves and— court, myself myself between and the I precisely problem MOODY: That’s the state, myself experts, the and all the and toying to correct am now. myself everybody going and else that is So, support to the defense. it works as also great The trial court to went you peep of plan, won’t hear a out me lengths explain to to Mr. the risks the day in court until the of trial. se, disadvantages pro and of proceeding court respective The trial then clarified the faced, charges the and he and penalties of the attorney roles the and client the expected in the trial and could be following exchange: sentencing proceedings. The trial court (60), IQ Moody’s age way and the the considered Mr. [T]he
COURT: tactics (three (120), background proceeds, lawyer trial the and educational of years undergraduate makes the call that. studies and some time, 6.1(b) appointed any stage the Rule read as follows: or retained of At the proceedings. waives the may When A defendant his her waive defendant counsel, may appoint writing an or on the after the the court has the attorney during court ascertained that to advise the defendant knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily de- and stage proceedings. advisory Such coun- of forgo right. accept- At the time of sires of given sel shall be of all notice matters ing a defendant’s waiver to coun- of which the notified. defendant is sel, the court inform the defendant that shall added). 6.1(b) (emphasis P. Ala. R. Crim. may waiver be and counsel withdrawn “the not want court courses). that he did trial court warned The school law [him].”3' to assist that, represent- opinion, its Mr. “foolhardy endeav- himself
ing would week, “Mo- filed a The next Mr. against it. or” and advised that, He “in Equal stated tion for Justice.” to have Moody that he continued Mr. told se,” pro himself he electing ap- right to have a constitutional leadership, of sought “remedy lack mind in the change he his pointed should work, of interest lack of lack of lack proceed- him if he future, but warned years, a half funding two and, se, point a later time pro ed adequate representation,” denied counsel, trial requested applauded “should be asserted delayed. further exercising his constitutional sent himself[J” Moody indicated that understood At advice admonitions. the trial court’s hap- on what heavily relies sit that “no one can here point one he said argue pened after all today perceive ramifications reevaluated and court should have But as each one proceeding se. of me him to allow reassessed its decision it to up come I will address things effect, of these represent himself. In ability and use whatever my saying the best seems to be withdrew [cjourt makes available The district counsel. resources colloquy, At rejected me.” the conclusion for three com- assertion First, that it Moody repeated procedurally was desire pelling reasons. was se, granted F.Supp.3d the trial court proceed pro Moody, See barred. Second, portrayal
his motion.
inaccurate
was
(or
at least based
a view
record
was
days
hearing,
Two
after
deference).
record that accorded no
complaining
about
to the trial
wrote
Third, it
foreclosed
id. at 1212-13.
appointment
its
Mr. Jaffe
decision Mar-
by the
Court’s
argument before the Alabama
him at oral
shall,
1449-50.
on his writ of
F.Supp.3d
1213-14.
think
dis-
comptrol-
concerning the state
prohibition
is correct
all
analysis
trict
court’s
payments to
interim
ler’s refusal make
grounds,
a bit
three
elaborate
§ 15-21-
Code
under Alabama
*7
defense
third.
appoint-
to
objected
the
12. Mr. Moody
indulge ev-
pro
requires
Zerbst
that “courts
was now
Jaffe because he
ment Mr.
against
ery
presumption
se,
“[disregard
reasonable
explaining that such
rights[.]”
why
constitutional
of main
fundamental
my input is one
the
reasons
(quotation
marks
He also U.S. at
pro se.”
proceeding
insisted on
omitted).
Moody’s conten-
and
Mr.
“given considerable
citation
that he had
said
presumption
to
this
to
tion seems
be that
given
thought to the
cautions”
various
after
indefinitely, even
a
applied
limita-
should be
regarding
by
court
the
him the trial
effected a valid Sixth
on
defendant has
imposed
an
that
be
tions
would
argument, as
him,
Amendment waiver. This
we
assigned and had determined
assist
expert
partic-
the
challenges
re
dant is not entitled to
§ 15-12-21
choice,
competent
opinions
un
published
entitled to a
several
and
ular
but is
sulted
by
Courts.
published
expertise
decisions
the Alabama
has been
expert in
field of
that
the
See,
defense”).
e.g.,
parte
684 So.2d
Ex
necessary
the
found
(Ala. 1996)
indigent
(holding
defen-
that "an
noted,
previously
ignores
non-lawyer,
the “tension” be-
a
‘ill-
“guarantee
tween the
Amendment’s
equipped’
arguments
Sixth
jury;
make
the
counsel,”
hand,
of the
on
the one
and
that
considered his desire to
[it]
”
promise
and “its
concurrent
constitu-
himself to
‘a foolhardy
sent
endeavor.’
tional right
without
Moody,
If appeal, might a direct were we perform post-waiver analysis have to is no mandatory script There the decide record and whether follow must read a defendant who is “broad consensus” circuits other thinking about representing himself at tri waived, “once held that al. information “The must pos defendant longer unqualified.” counsel is no Unit- intelligent sess order to make elec (2d Kerr, ed States v. depend tion ... range of case- will cases). (citing But the habeas factors, specific including defendant’s context, it is us to note that sufficient or sophistication, complex education Court, Marshall, Supreme has al- easily grasped charge, nature ready clearly is no determined there stage Tovar, proceeding.” regard law with established federal how (citation U.S. at omit S.Ct. 1379 a court is to treat a for counsel ted). assessing In totality the cir made after valid Faretta waiver. here, therefore, cumstances into we take doing, S.Ct. at In so colloquies account between rejected general notion that the trial court and Mr. also the Moody, but principles supply Sixth can Amendment information revealed record. such clearly federal law. See established Fitzpatrick, 800 (reviewing id. at 1449. that there Given several factors determine whether the precedent point, say we cannot understood, risks of se defense are decision Alabama Court including repre whether a to, contrary or an sented counsel before of, application clearly unreasonable estab- knowledge of nature of the defendant’s lished federal law. charges possible penalty he was sub convicted). ject to if B Moody argues By of 1994 been misinformed about his represented years by for over two *8 counsel, the assistance of stand and about Jaffe Mr. Turberville. He had also counsel, thereby rendering his decision proceedings party a legal been other unknowing. himself Given (civil criminal) proceeded pro had for, argument deference calls AEDPA part se for those all about carry day. not does So.2d at proceedings. Moody, 547. Moody through a federal Mr. had also engaged “lengthy The trial in a sat court 2, underlying on the events colloquy” Moody August on trial based with Mr. same evidence, trial that he would be with much same “warned counsel; significant disadvantage only “took his wit- without the stand he 183, 104 McKaskle, 465 U.S. testimony.” others. See days of narrative for four ness S.Ct. at 1429.4 Moody, Appeals Court of Criminal The Alabama Moody, the trial According to Mr. not err court did held that he the assistance incorrectly described standby counsel. See failing appoint rep- standby from counsel if have could it Notably, at 559-68. Moody, 888 So.2d Mr. sees Moody himself. As resented request for Moody’s Mr. characterized (and Alabama the trial court things, him- representing him in counsel assist erroneously Appeals) of Criminal way: this pro se self for request request his as a characterized assent intended [Mr.] really “hybrid representation” when was only if standby appointment counsel assume, standby counsel. We function as such counsel trial deciding, that at times the
without
assistant,
legal-research
amounted to
of what
coun-
explanation
standby
court’s
perform
if such counsel would
only
completely
was not
accurate.
sel could
investigation at his
pretrial
di-
extensive
points to
trial
Moody,
example,
It
is clear
[Mr.]
rection.
August
on
hearing
at the
statement
court’s
complete control over
to exercise
wanted
standby
not
counsel could
actions, including all
counsel’s
[of]
any pretrial
him at all with
matters.
help
strategic decisions as
how
tactical and
not
assumption, we do
But
even with
and.present
the case.
prepare
cor-
entitled to habeas
think Mr.
It ruled that Mr.
was
Id. at 559-60.
pus relief.5
“hybridized representa-
to a
entitled
assis-
categorical
design[,]”
is no
bar
There
and observed
tion
own
that,
standby
appointed
counsel for a
standby
had the trial
tance
objections,
himself at- counsel over
has elected
who
ground for
arguing that
Wiggins, 465
would be
McKaskle v.
trial. See
(citations
reversal. Id. at
he did
want
to assist
MARTIN,
Judge, concurring:
Circuit
week, in
following
his “Motion for
Criminal defendants
constitution-
Justice,”
Equal
Moody
Mr.
asked
al
themselves.
is
This
court to reappoint Mr. Jaffe and to
complex
true no matter how
or
serious
Nail,
co-
attorney,
Tommy
another
Mr.
“as
trial. It doesn’t
their
matter
the de-
counsel to assist” him. The
court
trial
specialized legal knowledge
has no
fendant
already explained
to Mr.
experience
him to
which allow
effective-
hy-
did not have a constitutional
ly
himself.
it
advocate
Neither does
Cross,
brid co-counsel. See
893 F.2d at
lawyer,
matter that with no
de-
so,
later,
1291-92.
less than
likely
give
Even
a week
not
fendant is
able to
information it needs to make a fair
reap-
motion
rescinded the
only
guilt,
about not
his
reliable decision
point
“past
Mr. Jaffe because his
differ-
punishment- Binding Supreme
but his
ences” with him had not been resolved.
requires
that a de-
Court precedent
argues
he never actual-
fendant make a valid
ly withdrew his
for Mr. Nail’s
in order to
own.
assistance, and that the Alabama
California,
806, 834-36,
Faretta v.
Appeals ignored
fact.
crucial
2525, 2540-41,
separately
comprehend
because
trial record dem-
avail
this
counsel.”).
troubling consequences
of
onstrates the
be heard
capital
Faretta—particularly
in
cases.
in
dissenters
Faretta criticized the
The
trial,
capital
Representing himself at his
majority’s holding
inconsistent with the
any
evi-
objection
made no
right to
fair trial and soci-
defendant’s
a
closing
opening
He made no
dence.
just
in
ety’s
proceedings.
interest
criminal
put
argument
failed
jury. He
Burger
right to
predicted
Justice
Chief
par-
essentially
He
refused
defense.
“only
self-representation would
add
of the
part
in the trial.
ticipate
During
malfunctioning
of
problems
already
upon
the jury
trial in
was called
Faretta, justice system.”
criminal
U.S.
death,
put
whether
should
decide
837,
C.J.,
(Burger,
will passage nothing has The time done capital context of trials. allay these fears. Indeed “experience Court has since observed I. taught has us that se defense is con- recognized the defense, usually particularly a bad when self-representation stitutional compared provided by to a defense 1975, holding that' a criminal defendant attorney.” experienced criminal defense proceed without counsel “when he could Appeal Cal., Martinez v. Court of to do voluntarily intelligently elects Appellate Dist., 152, 161, U.S. Fourth Faretta, S.Ct. at so.” U.S. (2000) 145 L.Ed.2d acknowledged at the time The Court others ex- (quotation And holding long that its was in discord with pressed dismay practical with the conse- precedent emphasizing line “the See, e.g., quences holding. of Faretta’s is help lawyer essential assure Farhad, United States 832-33, fair trial.” Id. (9th J., (Reinhardt, con- 1106-07 See, e.g., Argersinger curring) (noting self-rep- that the Hamlin, though not al- “frequently, resentation (1972) (“The assis- 32 L.Ed.2d ways, squarely inherently conflicts requisite of counsel tance often trial”). to a These con- with fair very trial.”); existence Powell fair Alabama, certainly apex in 45, 68-69, cerns are at their trials, (“The defen- context where the 77 L.Ed. be, cases, heard would of little life at stake. many dant’s
813
gument.
objections
He made no
to the
II.
evidence,
and
called no witnesses. And
high quality legal
We know
the
penalty phase
crucial
of trial was no
capital
in
Capi-
sentation
essential
trials.
different.
presented
The State
the jury
complex. They
tal trials are more
with its
in aggravation
case
and asked the
Murray
unique
own
their
set of rules. See
jurors to
a
recommend
of death.
sentence
Giarratano,
1, 28,
U.S.
109 S.Ct.
silent,
Mr. Moody
offering
sat
nothing in
2765,
(1989)
2780,
(Stevens,
106 L.Ed.2d
State,
mitigation. See
888 So.2d
J.,
(“[T]his
dissenting)
penal-
Court’s death
(Ala.
2003).
App.
552-53
Crim.
jurisprudence
ty
unquestionably is difficult
lawyer
master.”);
penalty
for a
The
phase
capital
even
trained
of a
trial is a
separate
Appointment
ABA
for the
proceeding
Guidelines
in which the jury is
person
Performance of Defense Counsel in
asked
decide
just
Death
whether the
1.1,
Penalty Cases,
of
History
capital
convicted
a
offense
put
Guideline
of
should be
(rev..
2003),
state,
reprinted
by
Guideline
Feb.
in
death
of
the
or
act
instead
(2003)(“[Bjecause
E.g.,
Hofstra L. Rev.
a life
receive
sentence.
Ala. Code
13A-5-45,
extraordinary
sentencing,
complexity
prosecutor
de-
At
cases,
capital
jury
mands of
asks the
significantly
a
sentence the
defendant
Often,
degree
death.
as
greater
experience
of skill and
was the
in
case
trial,
Moody’s
can
part
required
prosecutor
highlight
defense counsel is
case.”).
cruelty
than
a
noncapital
by
Because of the
unfathomable
shown
defendant,
severity
finality
of the death penalty,
resulting
as well as the
horrific
imposed
job
a
senseless deaths.
Court has
number
then falls to
procedural protections
jury
defense
to educate
apply only
capital
telling
about the
constitutionally
by
story
cases. These
re-
way
a
quired protections seek
such
to communicate how
greater
ensure
reliability
making
thing.
the decision
defendant came to
this horrible
at both
guilt
phases
capital
jury
It well
that “before
penalty
established
See, e.g.,
Alabama,
can
grave
imposing
trials.
undertake the
task of
Beck v.
U.S.
sentence,
627, 637-38,
2382, 2384,
death
it must be
allowed
2389-90,
(1980)
culpability
consider a
moral
(holding
defendant’s
jury
and decide whether
is an appropri-
be instructed on
death
must
lesser
punishment
ate
by
light
for that individual in
included offenses
the evi-
supported
trial);
personal
guilt phase
capital
history
dence
characteristics
Ohio,
and the
Lockett
circumstances
offense.” Ab-
U.S.
Quarterman,
2964-65,
dul-Kabir v.
(plu-
said—what didn’t with a offense to be opening closing made no ar- ecuted statement counsel for the state without C.J., defense, (Burger, dissent- 95 S.Ct. at for his assignment convicted, tried, ing). death and sentenced judicial little mur
... short of *12 Powell, U.S.
der.” capi precedent permits now our even
But their de
tal undermine own defendants by choosing without
fense required State courts are
counsel. pro standby counsel assist se defendants, judge de
capital so for Moody.
clined Allowing capital defendant
So.2d America, UNITED STATES go without assistance before Plaintiff-Appellee, legitimacy of of counsel undermines in his sen the criminal trial that results People Bloom, of death. tence Man, BOWENS, Ian M. a.k.a. New 774 P.2d Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d Defendant-Appellant. (1989) (Mosk, J., concurring and (“Faretta sword for dissenting) is not a No. 16-10228 defendant; may not use the Non-Argument Calendar self-representation to ... undermine the Appeals, United States Court adversary process.”). Eleventh Circuit. recently reaffirmed (March continuing of Faretta. Indiana vitality Edwards, 164, 178, U.S. 2379, 2388, (explic- Faretta). But
itly declining to overrule con- also
Court’s decision Edwards self-representation that the firmed Lindsay Moore, Michael Feinberg, J. may not absolute and limited under Office, Ma- Attorney, Attorney’s U.S. (holding that certain circumstances. id. GA, McEwen, con, E. Leah U.S. Attor- may deny a state Office, GA, Plaintiff-Ap- Albany, ney’s the mental represent himself he lacks pellee defense); competency to conduct his own Martinez, see 528 U.S. Debrow, Jr., De- Barry Public Federal (holding Columbus, GA, there Office, fender’s Christina ap- criminal in a self-representation Hunt, direct Vogelbaum, Martin Federal Lee J. Wiggins, peal); McKaskle v. Office, Macon, GA, for Public Defender’s L.Ed.2d 122 Defendant-Appellant (1984) (holding may standby PRYOR, Before WILLIAM JORDAN appointed over a se defendant’s ROSENBAUM, Judges. Circuit
objection). There to limit good reasons of this trials. scope PER CURIAM: to use should allow defendants Dodson, justice system appointed criminal “an instrument Jonathan Faretta, appeal, of self-destruction.” U.S. at Ian Bowens this direct criminal