Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:06-CR-33 (01) RM.
January 28, 2008
OPINION and ORDER
The court notes that Mr. Motolo, for whom counsel has appeared, has filed a motion that does not carry the signature of counsel. Mr. Motolo says he's asking the court to make "a de novo determination for a complete review of pertinent and immutable facts" of this case pursuant to his right to assist and/or act as co-counsel in his own defense. Contrary to Mr. Motolo's assertion, there is no Sixth Amendment right to a "hybrid representation" where a defendant acts as co-counsel along with his attorney. United States v. Chavin, 316 F.3d 666, 671 (7th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Singleton, 107 F.3d 1091, 1101 n. 7 (4th Cir. 1991) ("The cases reiterating the principle that courts are not required to allow defendants to split the responsibilities of the representation with an attorney are myriad."); United States v. Oakey, 853 F.2d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1988) ("Hybrid representation is disfavored since it allows a defendant to address the jury, in his capacity as counsel, without being cross-examined in his capacity as a defendant.");United States v. Norris, 780 F.2d 1207, 1211 (5th Cir. 1986) ("[A] defendant does not have the right to a hybrid representation in which he conducts a portion of the trial and counsel conducts the balance.").
Mr. Motolo is represented by counsel, so he cannot make a pro se filing; his counsel must manage the litigation and all filings must be made through counsel. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 49(d); Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a). Accordingly, Mr. Motolo's petition [docket # 88] will not be considered as properly before the court.
SO ORDERED.