U.S. v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
The magistrate did not lack authority to rule on defendant’s request to represent himself.
The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and other white-collar criminal offenses. Case law holds that magistrate judges are authorized to hear and determine any pretrial matter. Moreover, it supports the position that magistrate judges have authority to decide motions for self-representation. The competency and knowledge requirements for waiving a right to conflict-free representation are substantially the same as the requirements for waiving the right to assistance of counsel entirely, which is pre-requisite to representing oneself.
The defendant’s counsel did not sufficiently appeal the magistrate’s order to the District Court.
Because the defendant’s attorney did not adequately appeal the magistrate judge’s order to the District Court, the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of the order. The attorney simply stated that he reasserted the defendant’s desire to represent himself. A single statement that does not refer to an order or challenge its reasoning is not specific enough or clear enough to permit a District Court to effectively review the magistrate’s ruling. The court dismissed this portion of the appeal.
Tags: competency, Conspiracy, Jurisdiction, magistrate, security fraud, white-collar crime
