U.S. v. Underwood

Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing defendant to waive his right to appointed counsel on firearm charges. While defendant argued that his waiver was not knowing and voluntary, Magistrate’s Judge’s inquiry into defendant’s request to proceed pro se adequately informed defendant of dangers of self-representation and specifically told defendant that he would not be treated more leniently or held to different standard with respect to rules of law and procedure simply because he was representing himself. Dist. Ct. was also not required to list specific defenses for defendant to consider when determining whether to waive counsel. Also, defendant’s active participation at trial and his regular consultation with stand-by counsel, his prior experiences in two felony prosecutions and reason for his waiver that included differences in trial strategy with his appointed counsel also favored granting defendant’s request to proceed pro se. Too, Dist. Ct, did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant in criminal contempt for refusing to answer prosecutor’s question on cross-examination. Fifth Amendment did not apply where question posed criminal ramification only for third-party, and defendant’s stated preference not to be a “snitch” did not require different result. Also, defendant’s prior testimony opened door to prosecutor’s question.