U.S. v. Sandles, 93-1999

• Decision Date: 27 April 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-1999,93-1999
• Citation: 23 F.3d 1121
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John E. SANDLES, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 1121

23 F.3d 1121

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John E. SANDLES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-1999.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Jan. 13, 1994.

Decided April 27, 1994.

Paul Kanter, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Office of the U.S. Atty., Milwaukee, WI, for plaintiff-appellee.

Annice Kelly (argued), Fox & Fox, Madison, WI, for defendant-appellant.

Before CUMMINGS, ESCHBACH, and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

After a four-day trial, a jury convicted John E. Sandles ("Sandles") of five counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a). The district court sentenced Sandles to several concurrent terms of 180 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. On appeal, Sandles raises two issues: (1) whether he knowingly and intelligently waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel; and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Sandles' motion for substitute counsel. We vacate the conviction on the former ground, and remand for a new trial. Therefore, we do not address the latter argument.

I.

In a three-month period commencing on December 10, 1991, John Eric Sandles committed a spree of bank robberies that netted him approximately $13,500. Following the last of the five robberies, a criminal complaint was issued and eventually Sandles was arrested. On May 21, 1992, Sandles made his first court appearance in connection with this case, at which time the court found Sandles to be indigent and appointed David E. Lowe ("Lowe") to serve as counsel. On July 7, 1992, the grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment charging Sandles with five counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a). Following his arraignment, Sandles filed a notice of insanity defense pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 12.2. At the government's request, the court issued an order on July 23, 1992, directing that Sandles undergo psychiatric and psychological examinations. On October 13, 1992, the examination report was submitted to the court revealing that Sandles suffered from grandiose delusions about his own capabilities. About a month after the report was submitted, the court granted Sandles' motion for an independent evaluation, scheduled a pretrial conference for January 22, 1993, and set trial for February 1, 1993.

On December 30, 1992, Sandles filed a pro se motion to dismiss and discharge Lowe as his court-appointed attorney. Sandles leveled a number of rather serious accusations, including the allegations that Lowe had: (1) "demonstrated racial bias and hostilities;" (2) advised Sandles not to cooperate with the court-appointed psychologist and to deny any memory of the crimes; (3) refused to consult with Sandles' mother to obtain relevant medical records; and (4) refused to file pretrial motions to obtain said records. Sandles argued that his right to a fair and impartial trial would be compromised if Lowe continued his representation. On January 4, 1993, Lowe filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, supported by an affidavit averring that the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship warranted appointment of substitute counsel. ¹

At the January 22, 1993, pretrial conference, the court heard oral statements from both Sandles and Lowe concerning the motions for new counsel. The following testimony was presented:

MR. LOWE: Your honor, I have filed two motions with the court and I know Mr.--my client has filed a motion with the court. One motion is a motion for continuance of the trial date in order to attempt to obtain some medical records for Mr. Sandles' evaluation. The other and probably more germane at this point is a motion on my behalf to withdraw, and that was filed shortly after Mr. Sandles informed me that he had filed a motion requesting new counsel.

THE COURT: All right, thank you. Mr. Sandles, you have two options at this point. You can either represent yourself or continue with Mr. Lowe's representation. I'm only willing to grant Mr. Lowe's and your motion for new counsel if you want to proceed without a lawyer. I would advise you against doing so because there are many matters from the jury instructions to legal matters that need to be addressed in the context of litigation, but I do not at all look kindly on motions for new lawyers on the eve of trial.

Before entertaining Sandles' response, the court permitted Lowe to answer the charges raised by Sandles' motion. In addition to categorically denying the allegations that he had neglected his client and exhibited racial bias, Lowe made the following statement:

MR. LOWE: I've been--I think it's past the point where he's attacking me or making comments on my professional conduct. It's now personal.

I have represented in this district for at least ten years many, many defendants, and I've practiced before this court. And appointments, most of them because of the district we're in, I suppose, are made up of minority individuals. I have represented them to the point quite honestly, Judge, where my family and I economically have been disadvantaged because of the fees and I accept that. It's because it's something I have wanted to do. And to be accused of being racially biased and making racial comments I find reprehensible. I deny them.

. . . . .

In sum, Judge, I think the only thing that I do agree with in Mr. Sandles' motion is that at this point because of the personal nature of the way this has come out, I don't believe it's in his best interests for me to continue to represent him. I do not believe because of the personal nature of this that I can zealously represent him and follow the ethics guidelines that I would be bound to follow should I be his attorney. It's for those reasons, Judge, that I'm requesting to be relieved from any further representation of Mr. Sandles.

Sandles then responded to Lowe's statement and simply reiterated much of what he had alleged in his motion. The following discussion then ensued:

THE COURT: All right, thank you. Well, you hit the nail on the head, Mr. Sandles; that is, all of this in the court's view is nothing short of pure pettiness--

MR. SANDLES: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: --in an attempt to manipulate the court. I reject it out of hand. The case is going to trial on Monday, February 1st. Mr. Lowe will either be your attorney or stand-by counsel. I am not appointing any new counsel to represent you in the matter; and I would expect that you cooperate with Mr. Lowe in the next week or ten days because we're going to trial in this case on Monday, February the 1st at eight-thirty in the morning.

MR. SANDLES: Okay. Sir, there's one last--

THE COURT: And if there is any request for jury instructions or voir dire, they should be filed with the court not later than the close of business on Friday, that is, Friday January 29th. And we will be in this courtroom so all of your subpoenas should be returnable at courtroom 225.

MR. SANDLES: Yes, sir. There's one last thing, sir.

MR. LOWE: Judge, I would like a response to your question to him whether he wants to do this by himself or with me.

MR. SANDLES: It appears that I don't understand the philosophies of logic well enough to defend myself. I'm not equipped to understand how to defend an argument or to bring out a fallacy or anything like that. I don't know any of that. I know it but I'm not prepared to do that on any since I haven't--I have nothing, I know nothing of that. I know of it but I'm not--he's practiced. He has the techniques much better, so it would be much better for me to have him as an attorney....

After Sandles informed the court that he wished to have Lowe as his attorney rather than go pro se, a conversation took place concerning Sandles' ability to obtain certain medical records prior to trial. The conversation degenerated into the following exchange:

THE COURT: Well, that's something you'll have to work out between the doctor and your attorney. I'm sorry.

MR. SANDLES: Sir, I'm saying that he--(to Mr. Lowe) You promised me that you would talk to him about--

MR. LOWE: I called and made your request.

MR. SANDLES: To the doctor? To the judge?

MR. LOWE: Judge, this is the kind of manipulation and I don't--

MR. SANDLES: Manipulation.

MR. LOWE: Judge, I don't mean to be disrespectful, I certainly don't, but this is the kind of manipulation that I've been going around with this client ever since I've been appointed to represent him. Now, if you are ordering me to continue my representation, I will do so to the best of my ability.

THE COURT: All right, I would suggest--

MR. LOWE: So this court understands, and I'm sorry to put in on the record because I don't know where this case is going to end up or how it's going to end up, I also have to be quite frank, malpractice insurance I need to consider and certainly--

MR. SANDLES: Consider it.

MR. LOWE: That's the kind of comment.

MR. SANDLES: Sincerely. There's nothing wrong with that.

MR. LOWE: Having to go to trial with Mr. Sandles based on the manipulation and his attitude, I'm almost being put in a position of having to take the case to trial where I said I'm going to be ineffective and now I have--

MR. SANDLES: You literally have been ineffective already.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, we're going to trial on February 1st. I suggest you meet with your client after this hearing this morning, get out all the subpoenas you want. We'll try this case if it takes six months to try it. We're starting next Monday, February 1st.

Thus, when court recessed, Lowe remained Sandles' trial counsel. On January 26, however, Lowe submitted a motion to reconsider his request to withdraw, citing Sandles' belief that Lowe was both ineffective and racist. Again, Lowe stated the belief that his continued representation of Sandles would be against Sandles' best interest and possibly would deny Sandles' right to counsel. The court denied Lowe's motion without a hearing. The following day, January 27, Sandles filed a notice of...