Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Southern California Criminal Defense Blog

Criminal Law

: Southern California Criminal Defense Blog

NINTH CIRCUIT: APPELLANTS? DECISION TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES WAS ?FOOLISH,? BUT DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED TO APPOINT COUNSEL AGAINST THEIR WISHES

By Walin & Klarich

On July 6, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that the district court did not violate appellants? Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by failing to appoint counsel in response to the self-represented appellants? unprofessional trial behavior. Prior to trial, the district court gave appellants ample opportunity to have counsel appointed on their behalf but they insisted on representing themselves. In 2004, appellants Kurt F. Johnson and Dale Heineman allegedly concocted a fraudulent scheme premised on relieving clients of mortgage debt. Because of this scheme, banks began to foreclose on appellants? clients? properties. Appellants retained an attorney who filed lawsuits against the banks. The suits were dismissed. In 2005, the federal government indicted appellants on conspiracy and mail fraud charges...continue to full post

Full post as published by Southern California Criminal Defense Blog on July 09, 2010 (boomark / email).