No. 18-6871

Archie Cabello v. United States District Court for the District of Oregon

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-11-28
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: case-law criminal-procedure due-process judicial-discretion right-to-counsel rule-11 self-representation
Key Terms:
Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-01-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a trial judge have a duty to protect a defendant's right to counsel of choice?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Does a Trial Judge have any duty to ensure that a defendants right to counsel of choice is protected? 2) When a defendant asserts his right to does the Trial Judge have any duty to see that the selfrepresentation is maningful? : 3) Does the Trial Judge have any duty to ensure that all papers : and representations presented to the Court are properly signed, before the Court and are not presented for any improper purpose pursuant to Rule li(a) of pleadings, motions, and other papers, or representations to the Court, 11(b),.11(b)(1), 11(b)(2), 11(b)(3), and 11(b)(4) 2? 4) Does the Trial Judge have discretion to disregard established Case Law?.Can the Trial Judge disregard or alter the Rules _ . of Criminal Procedure and Rule 11 Procedures on an ad hoc basis, to fit a paticular case or circumstances? . QUESTIONS PRESENTED1 1) Does a trial judge have any duty to ensure that a defendant's right to counsel of choice is protected? 2) When a defendant asserts his right to does .the trial judge have any duty to see that the self-representation is meaningful? 3) Does the trial judge have any duty to ensure that all papers and representations presented to the court are properly signed, properly before the court and are not presented for any improper purpose pursuant to Rule 11(a) of Pleadings, motions, and other papers; representations to the court, 1l1(b), 11(b) (1), 11(b) (2), 11 (b) (3), and 11(b) (4)? 4) Does the trial judge have discretion to disregard established case law? Can the trial judge disregard or alter the rules of : Criminal procedure and Rule 11 procedures on an ad hoc basis, to fit a particular case or circumstance. OPINIONS BELOW AND JURISDICTION There was no written opinion in the Appeals Court addressing the issues relevant in this proceeding. On June 25, 2018 the Ninth Circuit filed it’s order denying the petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the District Court of Oregon. This Court has Jurisdiction under 28 U.SC. §1254(1). CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED . : "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the . right... to have assistance of counsel for his defense". U.S. CONST. , Amend. VI. "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, , without due process of law..." U.S. CONST., Amend., V, XIV. -l .

Docket Entries

2019-01-07
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-12-07
Waiver of right of respondent USDC OR to respond filed.
2018-09-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 28, 2018)

Attorneys

Archie Cabello
Archie Cabello — Petitioner
Archie Cabello — Petitioner
USDC OR
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent