Opinion
05-cr-81165
07-10-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KHAOPHONE SYCHANTHA, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DENY HYBRID REPRESENTATION AND STRIKE DEFENDANT'S PRO SE PLEADING (ECF NO. 94)
HON. SEAN F. COX, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On February 15, 2024, David Steingold, counsel for Defendant Khaophone Sychantha, filed a motion to dismiss that Steingold states was drafted by Defendant. (ECF No. 93). However, Steingold states in that motion that he “cannot endorse any of the arguments made by defendant.” (Id. at 237). The Government subsequently moved to strike this motion from the record. (ECF No. 94).
Ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss would be tantamount to permitting him to conduct a hybrid representation. However, the Court has not granted Defendant leave to conduct such a representation, and Defendant is not entitled to conduct a hybrid representation as a matter of right. See United States v. Conder, 423 F.2d 904, 908 (6th Cir. 1970). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that “Government's Motion to Deny Hybrid Representation and Strike Defendant's Pro Se Pleading” (ECF No. 94) is GRANTED IN PART. The Government's motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks an order striking “Defendant Sychantha's Motion to Dismiss” (ECF No. 93) from the record and is DENIED in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Defendant Sychantha's Motion to Dismiss” (ECF No. 93) is STRUCK from the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.