U.S. v. Banks

In prosecution on four counts of bank robbery and attempted bank robbery, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion for new trial on ground that he did not knowingly or voluntarily waive his right to counsel on first day of trial or allow stand-by counsel to make closing argument for him upon terminating his own closing argument. Record showed that defendant had terminated five counsel during course of instant prosecution, that he terminated his last counsel on first day of trial, and that Dist. Ct. went through extensive colloquy with defendant regarding his request to be allowed to represent himself at trial that included topics such as extent of defendant’s legal education and his familiarity with Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Moreover, Dist. Ct. cautioned defendant that it would not advise defendant on how to proceed in courtroom and would follow Rules of Evidence regardless of whether he made appropriate objections. Also, defendant’s explanation that his desire to terminate counsel so that he could present sovereign-citizen defense supported finding that his request to terminate counsel was voluntary and knowing. Ct. further rejected defendant’s claim that his refusal to meaningfully participate in trial proceedings, or his ineffective closing argument should have prompted Dist. Ct. to rescind his waiver of counsel.