Opinion
Case No. 4:01 CR 207
May 21, 2002
ORDER REGARDING REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANT TRAFICANT
A jury found Defendant Traficant guilty of counts one through ten of the superseding indictment on 11 April 2002. (Docket # 341). On 22 April 2002, Defendant Traficant, who has represented himself throughout the proceedings in this case, filed a timely motion for a new trial. (Docket # 347).
That same day, attorneys Percy Squire and Lloyd Pierre-Louis filed, purportedly on behalf of Congressman Traficant, a motion for leave to appear as counsel to file instanter a supplemental memorandum in support of defendant's motion for a new trial. (Docket # 349).
The government filed a response to Defendant Traficant's motion for a new trial. (Docket # 354). Attorneys Squire and Pierre-Louis filed a reply. (Docket # 356). The government then moved to strike the reply on the ground that this Court had not granted these attorneys leave to file a reply on Congressman Traficant's behalf (Docket # 358).
On 7 May 2002, this Court ordered that
Defendant Traficant shall inform the Court in writing on or before 17 May 2002 whether Mr. Squire is representing him in this matter and whether he consents to Mr. Squire's filing, on his behalf, of a supplement to Congressman Traficant's motion for a new trial. If Congressman Traficant wishes to proceed with some form of hybrid representation, in which the Congressman would continue to represent himself while attorneys file legal documents on his behalf as co-counsel, he also shall present any arguments he may have for why this Court should now allow him to proceed in such a manner.
(Docket # 357 at 2-3).
Defendant Traficant filed a response to the order on 17 May 2002. (Docket # 397). In his response, Congressman Traficant states, "The submissions of Messrs. Squire and Pierre-Louis were submitted on my behalf with my full participation and involvement . . ." (Docket # 397 at 1-2). Congressman Traficant continues,
By reason of the impact that this [Juror Selection Plan] issue may have, in that it affects not only my rights as an individual, but also affects the rights of thousands of my constituents that reside in the Youngstown jury division, I believe it is appropriate to permit hybrid representation at this stage of the proceedings. While I continue to have confidence in my ability to defend myself . . . I do not want my preoccupation with my individual defense to prejudice presentation of the jury selection challenge . . . Accordingly, I desire that Messrs. Squire and Pierre-Louis serve as co-counsel during the post-trial and appellate stages of my prosecution for the limited purpose of challenging the N[orthern] D[istrict of] Ohio jury selection plan.
(Docket # 397 at 2). Congressman Traficant also requests that the Court accept a letter by Dr. Deborah Wasserman clarifying her affidavit, which was attached to the supplemental memorandum in support of the motion for a new trial. (Docket # 397 at 3).
Congressman Traficant is challenging the Juror Selection Plan of the Northern District of Ohio, which has applied to every criminal case in this district since 7 April 1997. This challenge potentially could affect other defendants in criminal cases. It is, therefore, appropriate that this issue have the participation of attorneys. Therefore, regarding this issue, the Court will permit a form of hybrid representation. Attorneys Squire and Pierre-Louis may serve as co-counsel during post-trial proceedings before this Court for the limited purpose of challenging the Juror Selection Plan. This Court lacks the authority to decide whether any hybrid representation will be permitted for any appellate proceedings before the Sixth Circuit.
Congressman Traficant's response asserts that the supplemental memorandum in support of his motion for a new trial was filed on his behalf by Attorneys Squire and Pierre-Louis and with his consent. Their motion to appear as co-counsel to file the memorandum (Docket # 349) is granted. The Court will consider the supplemental memorandum.
However, the government's motion to strike the reply to the government's response to the motion for a new trial, which Attorneys Squire and Pierre-Louis also filed, is granted. The government's response to the defendant's motion for a new trial addresses the arguments made by Congressman Traficant in his motion for a new trial, not the arguments made by Attorneys Squire and Pierre-Louis in their supplemental memorandum challenging the Juror Selection Plan. As Attorneys Squire and Pierre Louis only represent Congressman Traficant with respect to the Juror Selection Plan issue, their reply to other issues is inappropriate and will be stricken.
Congressman Traficant's request that the Court accept a letter by Dr. Deborah Wasserman clarifying her affidavit is granted.
The government shall file its response to the supplemental memorandum in support of Congressman Traficant's motion for a new trial and Dr. Wasserman's letter of clarification on or before 29 May 2002.