Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> California Appellate Report

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Federal Judiciary

: California Appellate Report

U.S. v. Johnson (9th Cir. - July 6, 2010)

By Shaun Martin

ADVERTISEMENTS

Welcome back from your July Fourth holiday, Mssrs. Johnson and Heineman. You'll be happy to learn that the Ninth Circuit now has a decision in your appeal.

Though I don't think you'll especially appreciate what Judge Silverman has to say about you. Because he's not exactly pulling any punches:

"Defendants Kurt F. Johnson and Dale Scott Heineman were indicted for conspiracy and multiple counts of mail fraud related to their illegitimate debt-elimination business. They were adamant in their desire to represent themselves and assert an absurd legal theory wrapped up in Uniform Commercial Code gibberish. Both defendants were examined by a psychiatrist and found to have no diagnosable mental disorder. . . . The judge practically begged them to accept counsel but they refused. The district court found that the defendants were competent to represent themselves and that such was their constitutional right. Defendants now contend that Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), decided by the Supreme Court after their trial concluded, required the

district court to terminate their self-representation because of what they describe as their ?nonsensical? legal ?antics? after the trial began. They say they may have been competent to

stand trial but not to represent themselves.

The record clearly shows that the defendants are fools, but that is not the same as being incompetent. Under both Faretta and Edwards, they had the right to represent themselves and

go down in flames if they wished, a right the district court was required to respect. There was no legal or medical basis to foist a lawyer on them against their will."

Not exactly mincing words.

Full post as published by California Appellate Report on July 06, 2010 (boomark / email).