Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Smoot

April 1, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VIRGIL SMOOT, III, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Sean F. Cox

AMENDED ORDER STRIKING DOCKET ENTRY NO. 18

The Court received a letter from Defendant Virgil Smoot, III, ("Defendant") on March 26, 2010, which the Court construed as a pro se motion (Doc. No. 18).

Because Defendant is currently represented by counsel, David Koelzer, Defendant is attempting to proceed in a "hybrid" fashion, both through his counsel and pro se by way of his motion. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984). Although the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to conduct their own defense and even represent themselves, see Farretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the right of self-representation does not include the right to proceed in a hybrid manner. McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 183; see also United States v. Mosely, 810 F.2d 93, 97-98 (6th Cir. 1987). This Court will not allow Defendant to proceed in a hybrid manner in this action will therefore strike Defendant's pro se submission, Docket Entry No. 18. Defendant should seek relief from this Court through his counsel, David Koelzer.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Docket Entry No. 18 is hereby STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sean F. Cox United States District Judge

20100401

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.