United States v. Engel, No. 18-10293 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for obstruction of justice and interstate travel in aid of extortion. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in an armed standoff between agents of the BLM and a group of private militia members that rallied behind Nevadan Cliven Bundy. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment during his trial when it terminated his right to represent himself and appointed standby counsel to represent him instead.
The panel held that defendant's conduct was not sufficiently disruptive to justify termination of his right to self-representation. In this case, defendant was not defiant and did not engage in blatantly outrageous conduct, such as threatening a juror or taunting the district judge. To the contrary, defendant merely asked a question prejudicial to the government. Furthermore, he remained calm and ultimately acquiesced in the district court's decision to revoke his right to self-representation. The panel also held that a violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation is structural error. Therefore, the panel must vacate the conviction and remand for a new trial.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated Todd Engel’s conviction for obstruction of justice and interstate travel in aid of extortion, and remanded for a new trial, in a case in which the district court terminated Engel’s right to represent himself during his trial and appointed standby counsel to represent him instead. Because the result is the same under either standard, the panel did not resolve whether de novo or abuse-of-discretion review applies to a defendant’s claim on direct criminal appeal that his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation was violated. The panel held that the facts do not support the termination of Engel’s right to represent himself because Engel was not defiant and did not engage in blatantly outrageous conduct, such as threatening a juror or taunting the district judge; to the contrary, he merely asked a question prejudicial to the government. The panel observed that a prior court order was not so unambiguous such that Engel’s conduct clearly violated it. The panel wrote that even if Engel did violate that order, that is insufficient to justify terminating his right to represent himself because a single instance of disobedience that is unaccompanied by open defiance or disruption does not justify termination of the constitutional right to self-representation without prior warning. UNITED STATES V. ENGEL 3 The panel wrote that the violation was not cured by the fact that the termination of Engel’s right to represent himself was only for a limited time, as Engel was precluded from cross-examining government witnesses, violating the Sixth Amendment. The panel wrote that other instances the government points to do not demonstrate that Engel’s conduct was disruptive. The panel wrote that even if cases addressing Batson challenges or claims of juror bias are apposite and appropriate deference is given to the district court’s observations of Engel’s body language and demeanor, the record does not establish that Engel’s conduct was sufficiently obstructive or disruptive. Because a violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to self-representation is structural error, the panel vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
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.