U.S. v. Vizcarro-Millan

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charge, Dist. Ct. did not violate one defendant’s right to counsel by discouraging him from exercising his right to represent himself, and, with respect to second defendant, by either failing to disqualify counsel due to conflict of interest arising out of counsel’s representation of govt. witness, or to grant defendant’s motion to withdraw his previously filed waiver of conflict-free counsel. Dist. Ct. should discourage all or nearly all defendants from exercising right to self-representation under Faretta, 422 U.S. 806, and goal is to ensure that defendant’s waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Instant hearing on defendant’s motion to represent himself focused on defendant’s improper attempt to create hybrid representation where standby counsel would assist defendant in litigation of case. As such, instant lengthy discussion with defendant was proper. Moreover, Dist. Ct.’s discussion regarding possible restrictions on access to confidential documents due to security concerns did not require different result. With respect to second defendant, record showed that any possible conflict of interest was unlikely to be severe, where counsel’s other client indicated to police that he did not know defendant, and govt. agreed that said client had not suggested any knowledge of facts that would implicate defendant. Also, record showed at second hearing on defendant’s motion to withdraw his waiver of conflict-free counsel, that: (1) counsel had recently claimed that his conflict of interest prohibited counsel from representing defendant at all; and (2) govt. was reluctant to enter into plea agreement with defendant while he was unrepresented. While defendant argued that his waiver of conflict-free counsel was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary, record showed that defendant knew what was happening. Moreover, Dist. Ct.’s decision to accept defendant’s waiver of conflict-free counsel was within its broad discretion, and defendant could not otherwise use his counsel’s conflict as bargaining chip in plea negotiations with govt.