99-3932 & 99-3951 U.S. v. Hill

Listen to this article

“James behaved in a pig-headed fashion. It is hard to imagine that by quoting from sec.1.02 of the Benchbook or expatiating about the drawbacks of self- representation (‘a fool for a client…’) the district judge could have talked him out of his decision. The Benchbook includes questions such as: ‘Do you understand that the U.S. Sentencing Commission has issued sentencing guidelines that will affect your sentence if you are found guilty?’ and ‘Do you understand that the Federal Rules of Evidence govern what evidence may or may not be introduced at trial and that, in representing yourself, you must abide by those rules?’ ‘Yes’ answers to these questions do not evince understanding of the complexities that lie ahead. Lists do not convey knowledge or change minds. It is hard to imagine any defendant with even modest resolve responding: ‘Oh, now that I know that something called the “Sentencing Guidelines” exists, I see the foolishness of representing myself.’ No one supposes that the judge must explain how the Guidelines work, for the validity of a waiver does not depend on possession of a legal education. As Johnson, Adams, and Faretta show, the question is not whether the district judge used a check- off list but whether the defendant understood his options. All a judge can do as a practical matter – all a judge need do as a legal matter – is ensure that the defendant knows his rights and avoids hasty decisions. Often asking the Benchbook questions may ensure that the defendant has his eyes open, but we do not read any of this court’s decisions to hold that the litany is prescribed in every case or that advice about any particular disadvantage of self-representation is essential; such a reading would put us at odds with the Supreme Court.”

Affirmed.