Campbell v. United States

5 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Vizcarra-Millan

    15 F.4th 473 (7th Cir. 2021)   Cited 36 times
    Holding a $100 discount or credit on one purchase was "extremely weak evidence of conspiracy"

    That means that district courts must press difficult, hesitant, or ambivalent defendants to answer yes or no whether they wish to waive the right to counsel. See United States v. Campbell , 659 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussing importance of unequivocal demand and rationale for requirement), vacated on other grounds, 568 U.S. 802, 184 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012). Turning to the facts here, seven days after the mistrial was declared in the Indianapolis trial, Grundy moved to represent himself.

  2. United States v. Cross

    959 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2020)   Cited 19 times

    See also United States v. Campbell , 659 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2011), vacated on other grounds, sub. nom. Campbell v. United States , 568 U.S. 802, ––– S.Ct. ––––, 184 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012) (describing the rationales for requiring that the demand to proceed pro se be unequivocal). Cross's purported request to proceed pro se does not meet this standard.

  3. United States v. Mancillas

    880 F.3d 297 (7th Cir. 2018)   Cited 13 times
    Applying the categorical approach to prior offenses for Guidelines calculations

    See Faretta , 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525. Courts have required an unequivocal assertion of the right to self-representation in order to prevent a defendant from using an ambiguous waiver of the right to counsel as a tool to overturn his or her conviction. See United States v. Campbell , 659 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2011), vacated on other grounds, sub. nom. Campbell v. United States, 568 U.S. 802, ––– S.Ct. ––––, 184 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012). Moreover, a request to proceed pro se must be made in a timely fashion.

  4. United States v. Campbell

    488 F. App'x 152 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted Campbell's petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration in light of its decision in Dorsey. Campbell v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 190 (2012). Campbell on remand now argues that we should reconsider our decision as to his conviction as well as his sentence, because the certiorari petition challenged both and was granted, thus remanding the case in its entirety.

  5. Mason v. Hepp

    18-cv-1351-pp (E.D. Wis. Mar. 14, 2022)

    “Courts have required an unequivocal assertion of the right to self- representation in order to prevent a defendant from using an ambiguous waiver of the right to counsel as a tool to overturn his or her conviction.” Id. (citing United States v. Campbell, 659 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2011), vacated on other grounds, sub nom., Campbell v. United States, 568 U.S. 802 (2012)). Second, a defendant seeking to waive his right to counsel must do so in a timely fashion.