99-3577 U.S. v. Oreye

Listen to this article

“The judge did not deny Oreye the assistance of counsel. On the contrary, he tried to persuade him to stick with Shanin. His fault if there is one was not going into sufficient detail about the perils of self-representation. We’re not sure it was a fault, or at least a serious, a fatal, fault, because if he had dwelled on those perils in truly loving detail he would stand accused of having infringed Oreye’s right to self-representation. The judge placed in Judge Shadur’s position is on the razor’s edge in assisting a defendant to make an informed choice between representation by counsel with whom the defendant is irrationally dissatisfied and self-representation. If the judge exaggerates either the advantages of being represented or the disadvantages of self-representation, he will be accused of having put his thumb on the scale and prevented the defendant from making an informed choice. United States v. Sandles, 23 F.3d 1121, 1127 (7th Cir. 1994). And therefore, as we said in United States v. Hill, 252 F.3d 919, 925, 928 (7th Cir. 2001), we ‘doubt that any list [of Faretta warnings] can be mandated’ or that the defendant can be given ‘a deep understanding of how counsel could assist him. … 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.'”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Shadur, J., Posner, J.