United States v. Douglas Dale Kienenberger, United States of America v. Douglas Dale Kienenberger

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that requests to represent oneself are not unequivocal when such requests “were always accompanied by [the defendant’s] insistence that the court appoint ‘advisory’ or ‘standby’ counsel to assist him on procedural matters”
• noting that 22 “[a] defendant does not have a constitutional right to “hybrid” representation,” and that the 23 Ninth Circuit has also “so held.”
• denying request for self-representation based on defendant’s indication that he wanted “advisory” counsel
• “To fit within See United States v. Figueroa-Soto, 938 F.2d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir. 1991
• expressly considering issue of whether Faretta claim was based on an unequivocal request by the defendant as a question of fact
• The defendant’s requests to proceed pro se were equivocal where they “were always accompanied by his insistence that the court appoint ‘advisory’ or ‘standby’ counsel to assist him on procedural matters.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).