Whether the Sixth Amendment requires that a waiver of the right to a jury trial in a criminal proceeding must be made personally by the defendant, or whether a valid waiver can be established through counsel's statements and the record as a whole, and what procedural safeguards apply to such waivers across jurisdictions

No question identified. : To the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Eight Circuit: Pursuant to Rule 13.5 of this Court, Applicant Jacob Hilbert respectfully request a 60-day extension of time, to and including September 29, 2023, in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. The Missouri Supreme Court entered its judgment on March 21, 2023. Exhibit A. A timely filed motion for rehearing was filed on March 28, 2023. The Motion for Rehearing was overruled on May 2, 2023. Exhibit B. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13(3), the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari currently expires on July 31, 2023. Petitioner is filing this Application more than ten days before that date. Respondent does not oppose this request. This case presents an important constitutional question regarding the right to a jury trial in a criminal proceeding as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, and more specifically, the requirements of a valid waiver of that right. Applicant was charged with two offenses, and the matter initially proceeded to a jury trial. During voir dire, a mistrial was declared, and the matter was rescheduled for jury trial a month later. A docket entry was made days prior to the date of the jury trial, indicating that the matter would now proceed to a bench trial. The day of the trial, the trial court addressed defense counsel in Applicant’s presence, stating “So I think, [defense counsel], you’ve represented that you’re wanting a bench trial instead of a jury trial; correct?” Defense counsel agreed, and the trial court indicated stated “so we will do it that way starting tomorrow|[.]” Midway through the bench trial, the prosecutor in Applicant’s presence if a written waiver had been filed. Defense counsel indicated that there had not and averred that one would be. However, no written waiver was ever filed. Applicant was convicted of all charges. At sentencing, Applicant’s mother made a statement in which she commented on the decision to proceed without a jury. Applicant also made a statement but did not comment on the decision to proceed without a jury. After imposing sentence, as is standard practice in Missouri, the trial court questioned Applicant about his satisfaction with his trial counsel. Applicant declined to answer any questions. Applicant appealed, arguing that he had never validly waived his right to a jury trial. A divided panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals found that there was no valid waiver of Appellant’s right to a jury trial and reversed his conviction. The State of Missouri sought transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court held that the record as a whole established that there had been a valid waiver. Applicant intends to petition for Certiorari, urging this Court to resolve the inter-state and inter-Circuit requirements for what constitute a valid waiver of the right to a jury trial. It is uniformly understood that whether the waiver the right to ajury trial is a decision that can only be made by a criminal defendant. A waiver cannot be made by counsel. However, there is no consistency in whether a waiver must be made personally by the defendant. Different jurisdictions require oral waiver, written waivers signed by the defendant, and in some locales, waivers made solely by counsel. Even where case law, statute, or rule establishes that the statement of counsel is insufficient to establish a valid waiver, a valid waiver has been found in some jurisdictions where the defendant was a “educated” or “articulate,” but not where the defendant had difficulties with the English language or was of low LQ. This cleavage in the treatment of the waiver of a constitutional right is of substantial importance. The 60-day extension is necessary for counsel in the lower courts to apply for admission t