U.S. v. Thomas

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s request for 4^th substitution of counsel or in finding that defendant had eventually waived his right to counsel for purposes of proceeding pro se at his trial. Dist. Ct. held several hearings with respect to granting defendant’s first three motions for substitution of counsel and subjected defendant to thorough examination with respect to his 4^th request for substitution of counsel, where, during said examination: (1) Dist. Ct. resolved defendant’s disputes with respect to receipt of discovery; (2) defendant merely stated that he did not trust his counsel; (3) defendant acknowledged that he refused to meet with current counsel. Moreover, record supported finding that defendant had voluntarily waived his right to counsel, where: (1) over course of case, Dist. Ct. gave defendant two Faretta hearings that explained dangers of proceeding pro se; and (2) defendant, who had 11^th grade education, indicated that he wished to proceed pro se after acknowledging that he understood said dangers, along with criminal charges and potential penalties, as well as applicable rules of procedure and evidence. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that Dist. Ct. had forced him to waive his right to counsel.