All Things Mobile Analytic Inc (ATMH)

[Huggy Bear]

Sir, your conviction was overturned after several unsuccessful appeals by a crafty challenge that your self representation was not adequately warned against by the trial judge, and that the US govt failed to meet the three prong requirement of the Faretta Principle established in Faretta vs. California, 422 US 806, 1975.

That appeal was upheld, and your conviction overturned.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1628&context=facpubs

An examination of the record indicates that, at the hearing on Hayes' motion to proceed pro se, the court asked Hayes if he understood “the consequence of not getting an attorney” and whether he “fully realize[d] the consequences of it.” The court further admonished, “if you lose this case, I don't want you to say that you lost it because you didn't have an attorney · or the Court didn't fairly advise you of your rights. You are told you have rights of counsel. Do you wish to avail yourself of that?”2

The court acted conscientiously in trying to persuade Hayes to have a lawyer, in doing what it could to accommodate his needs in representing himself and in insisting on appointing stand-by counsel. Having said that, insistence on retaining counsel is not the same as instruction on the need of counsel. Although the court emphasized that there are consequences of not having counsel, it did not describe those consequences. Nor did it explain the specific dangers and disadvantages of self-representation in a way that satisfies Faretta. The government conceded as much at oral argument:

“Your honor, I would admit that a clear Faretta warning does not appear in the transcript of this case.”

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1180209.html