No. 18-6871

Archie Cabello v. United States District Court for the District of Oregon

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-11-28
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: case-law criminal-procedure due-process judicial-discretion right-to-counsel rule-11 self-representation
Latest Conference: 2019-01-04
Question Presented (from Petition)

Does a Trial Judge have any duty to ensure that a defendants right to counsel of choice is protected?

When a defendant asserts his right to self—representation, does the Trial Judge have any duty to see that the self—representation is maningful?

Does the Trial Judge have any duty to ensure that all papers and representations presented to the Court are properly signed, before the Court and are not presented for any improper purpose pursuant to Rule 11(a) of pleadings, motions, and other papers, or representations to the Court, 11(b), .111(b)(1), 11(b)(2), 11(b)(3), and 11(b)(4) ?

Does the Trial Judge have discretion to disregard established Case Law? .Can the Trial Judge disregard or alter the Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rule 11 Procedures on an ad hoc basis, to fit a paticular case or circumstances?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a trial judge have a duty to protect a defendant's right to counsel of choice?

Docket Entries

2019-01-07
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-12-07
Waiver of right of respondent USDC OR to respond filed.
2018-09-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 28, 2018)

Attorneys

Archie Cabello
Archie Cabello — Petitioner
USDC OR
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent