Opinion
22-mj-30458
07-29-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HAMED AWAD, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO SET ASIDE FORFEITURE (ECF NO. 21)
Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before this Court upon Defendant Hamed Awad's pro se Motion. (ECF No. 21). Because Defendant filed the Motion in a hybrid manner, it will be DENIED.
On July 23, 2024, Defendant filed a pro se Motion to Set Aside Forfeiture. (ECF No. 21). Defendant filed his Motion while represented by an attorney, David Koelzer. By simultaneously proceeding pro se and through counsel, Defendant is proceeding in a “hybrid” fashion. E.g., United States v. Dehar, 2008 WL 4937855 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 14, 2008); 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 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819-20 (1975), the right of self-representation does not include the right to proceed in a hybrid manner, McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 183; see United States v. Mosely, 810 F.2d 93, 97-98 (6th Cir. 1987). Because Defendant has filed a hybrid motion, the Motion will be denied. United States v. Trout, 596 F.Supp.3d 965, 967 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 3, 2022).
Defendant should seek relief from this Court through his Court-appointed attorney.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d).