United States v. Brown, No. 19-1919 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel during a critical stage of the proceedings, because he clearly and unequivocally asserted his right to self-representation. Furthermore, the district court did not err in allowing defendant to proceed pro se with his public defender as stand-by counsel. Even assuming that defendant was denied his right to counsel, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, defendant was without counsel during the direct examination of one witness at the motion to suppress hearing. The court concluded that defendant failed to point to any deficiencies in counsel's cross-examination of the first witness or her examination of the subsequent witnesses, nor does he argue that his motion to suppress would have been granted had counsel performed the initial cross-examination of the Government's witness.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. During the pre-trial proceedings defendant clearly and unequivocally asserted his right to self-representation, and the court did not err in having him proceed pro se with his federal public defender as stand-by counsel; even assuming this brief absence of counsel was error, the error was harmless as defendant was without counsel at the suppression hearing during the direct examination of only one government witness and for a portion of the cross-examination of that witness; his stand-by counsel completed the cross-examination, and the court continued the hearing to allow his attorney time to prepare for the other witnesses; defendant is unable to point to any deficiencies in counsel's work or show that his motion to suppress would have been granted had counsel performed the initial cross-examination.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.