U.S. v. Clark

In prosecution on bank robbery charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in revisiting defendant’s decision to waive counsel, which ultimately led to defendant’s decision to accept representation by counsel for balance of case. Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that Dist. Ct. could not revisit issue of counsel’s representation once counsel has been waived, where initial waiver was accepted by Magistrate Judge “at this point and juncture" of case, and where nature of case had subsequently changed when govt. announced that defendant’s DNA would be introduced as evidence, so as to justify renewed inquiry into decision to waive counsel. Also, Dist. Ct. did not commit prejudicial error when admitting evidence of video of defendant at another bank (prior to charged offense) wearing same clothes attributed to robber in charged offense, where said evidence was relevant on issue of identity, and where defendant’s DNA provided strong evidence of his guilt.