U.S. v. BROWN, 15-CR-20652-6. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20160804e01
Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 03, 2016
Summary: ORDER STRIKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FRAUD [DOC. 266] GEORGE CARAM STEEH , District Judge . Defendant Robert M. Brown II, although represented by counsel, has filed judicial notice of fraud based on alleged violations of the Speedy Trial Act, as well as violations of constitutional rights. A person's right to appear pro se or by counsel is disjunctive, and a person in a criminal matter has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to "hybrid representation" that results in simultaneous self-re
Summary: ORDER STRIKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FRAUD [DOC. 266] GEORGE CARAM STEEH , District Judge . Defendant Robert M. Brown II, although represented by counsel, has filed judicial notice of fraud based on alleged violations of the Speedy Trial Act, as well as violations of constitutional rights. A person's right to appear pro se or by counsel is disjunctive, and a person in a criminal matter has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to "hybrid representation" that results in simultaneous self-rep..
More
ORDER STRIKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FRAUD [DOC. 266]
GEORGE CARAM STEEH, District Judge.
Defendant Robert M. Brown II, although represented by counsel, has filed judicial notice of fraud based on alleged violations of the Speedy Trial Act, as well as violations of constitutional rights. A person's right to appear pro se or by counsel is disjunctive, and a person in a criminal matter has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to "hybrid representation" that results in simultaneous self-representation and representation by counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1654; United States v. Mosely, 810 F.2d 93, 97-98 (6th Cir. 1987). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk hereby STRIKE defendant's judicial notice of fraud [doc. 266].
Source: Leagle
