From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Adams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG
Feb 22, 2013
Criminal Action No. 3:08-CR-77 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 22, 2013)

Opinion

Criminal Action No. 3:08-CR-77

02-22-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS, and JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS, Defendants.


Judge Bailey


ORDER

On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Defendant's pro se Motion to determine if the U.S. government agent i.e. the Fiscal Intermediary was required by Federal Law to immediately Reject the claim forms of an excluded provider of service [Doc. 1193] and pro se Motion to unseal the date Barry Beck, Esq. Requested funds for a competency evaluation of the defendant by Dr. Krieg and to unseal the date of Dr. Krieg's competency evaluation Report-letter [Doc. 1195], both filed on February 22, 2013.

A defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to be represented by an attorney, but a defendant has no right to act as co-counsel as defendant Adams has attempted to do in filing this pro se motion. United States v. Tarantino , 846 F.2d 1384, 1420 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 (1988). It is within the sound discretion of this Court to allow a defendant to assume some of his lawyer's functions, that is, to engage in "hybrid representation." See United States v. LaChance, 817 F.2d 1491, 1498 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 928 (1987) (citing United States v. Mills , 704 F.2d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir. 1983) and United States v. Daniels , 572 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir. 1978)). Hybrid representation, however, should be permitted only where a defendant has made a showing of some special need to act as co-counsel. United States v. West , 877 F.2d 281, 293 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 959 (1989).

Having reviewed the defendant's pro se Motion to determine if the U.S. government agent i.e. the Fiscal Intermediary was required by Federal Law to immediately Reject the claim forms of an excluded provider of service [Doc. 1193] and pro se Motion to unseal the date Barry Beck, Esq. Requested funds for a competency evaluation of the defendant by Dr. Krieg and to unseal the date of Dr. Krieg's competency evaluation Report-letter [Doc. 1195], this Court finds that the defendant has not made a sufficient showing of necessity for this Court to allow defendant to act as co-counsel to his appointed counsel in this matter. Accordingly, the defendant's pro se Motion to determine if the U.S. government agent i.e. the Fiscal Intermediary was required by Federal Law to immediately Reject the claim forms of an excluded provider of service [Doc. 1193] and pro se Motion to unseal the date Barry Beck, Esq. Requested funds for a competency evaluation of the defendant by Dr. Krieg and to unseal the date of Dr. Krieg's competency evaluation Report-letter [Doc. 1195] are hereby DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to counsel of record herein and to mail a copy to the defendant acting as a pro se defendant.

_______________

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Adams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG
Feb 22, 2013
Criminal Action No. 3:08-CR-77 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 22, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Adams

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS, and JOSEPHINE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG

Date published: Feb 22, 2013

Citations

Criminal Action No. 3:08-CR-77 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 22, 2013)