United States v. White
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cr-20416 |
| Decision Date | 10 March 2022 |
| Citation | 590 F.Supp.3d 1016 |
| Parties | The UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Darious Danyel WHITE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Ann Nee, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Flint, MI, Anthony P. Vance, U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Flint, MI, Adriana Dydell, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.
Federal Community Defender, Public Defender, Flint, MI, Alan A. Crawford, Saginaw, MI, Stevens J. Jacobs, Jacobs Law Office, P.C., Bay City, MI, for Defendant.
This matter is before this Court upon a motion to withdraw from Attorney Stevens Jacobs, Defendant's court-appointed public defender. ECF No. 87. While that Motion was pending, Defendant filed a motion for a special investigator and a motion for a legal tablet. ECF Nos. 93; 94. As explained hereafter, Defendant has waived his right to counsel, Attorney Jacobs's Motion will be granted, and Defendant's Motions will be denied.
Thirty firearms were stolen from Bowman's Outdoor Sports in the middle of the night on August 14, 2020. Although the alleged facts surrounding Defendant Darious Danyel White's indictment come from the parties’ filings, they are not clearly outlined in any single pleading. Accordingly, the following explanation is not intended to be dispositive of the alleged facts but to furnish the context necessary to address the motions at issue.
On August 14, 2020, at 3:35 AM, three people burglarized 30 firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer. See ECF No. 1 at PageID.3. At the scene, the police found the temporary license plate of a Chevrolet Cruze that belonged to Defendant's then-girlfriend,1 which led law enforcement to her house in Saginaw, Michigan. Id. at PageID.3–4. The criminal complaint alleges that, using air surveillance, law-enforcement officers saw Defendant at the house examining and selling firearms. Id. at PageID.5. They also located the car from the burglary, along with Defendant, who was wearing shorts and shoes similar to those worn by one of the burglars in a video recording of the burglary. Id. at PageID.5–6. Just before noon, Magistrate Judge David R. Grand issued a warrant for Defendant's arrest and seizure of the stolen firearms. See ECF No. 24-1 at PageID.97–99. The officers apprehended Defendant outside the house, in which they found 22 of the stolen firearms; in the Chevrolet Cruze, they found a pistol, ammunition, a hammer, and a crowbar with "fresh white paint on the end." ECF No. 1 at PageID.5–6.
After his arrest, Defendant sought to exclude a statement he made at his then-girlfriend's house during his arrest. See ECF No. 43 at PageID.187 (describing the conversation); see also ECF Nos. 23 (); 38 (same). As Defendant explained in his motion to suppress, while the police searched the house, they "held" him in a van in which he "requested to talk to [his then-girlfriend] ... before he went to jail." ECF No. 23 at PageID.76. His then-girlfriend asked him, "[W]hy did you take off the license tags on the car at the gun store," and he replied that he "didn't." Id. While changing his shorts, which the officers wanted to collect as evidence, Defendant overheard the officers say that they recovered "18 of the 36" stolen firearms. Id. at PageID.76–77. Apparently, one of the officers then "reiterated to [Defendant] the importance of recovering the remaining firearms before anyone got hurt." Id. at PageID.77. In response, Defendant "excitedly said that the 18 guns in the bag in the yard were all that was taken, and if anyone said there were more than 18, then the gun store is just trying to get insurance money." Id. Defendant "immediately said that he knew that he incriminated himself, but that the guns in the bag were ‘on him’ and that was all that was taken." Id.
Four days later, Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Panel Attorney Jerome Sabbota filed an appearance on Defendant's behalf. See ECF No. 6.
Within a month, Defendant "advised Jerome Sabbota" that "he no longer wished Mr. Sabbota to represent him and [that] he will [be] suing him." ECF No. 11 at PageID.28. Citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Attorney Sabbota filed a motion to withdraw, id. , which Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris granted before appointing a federal community defender to represent Defendant, ECF No. 13. On September 25, 2020, CJA Attorney Stevens Jacobs filed an appearance to represent Defendant. ECF No. 15.
After his arrest in early September 2020, Defendant was indicted for possession of firearms and ammunition by a prohibited person, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) ; possession, concealment, and sale of stolen firearms, id. § 922(j) ; and receipt of firearms and ammunition while under indictment, id. § 922(n). See ECF No. 12.
Attorney Jacobs filed two motions on Defendant's behalf: a December 2020 motion to suppress his confession, ECF No. 23, and a January 2021 motion to quash the search warrant, ECF No. 24. These two motions became a confusing point of contention between Defendant and his second appointed public defender, Attorney Jacobs.
In February 2021, Attorney Jacobs filed his first motion to withdraw after Defendant informed Attorney Jacobs that he was fired, as he did with Attorney Sabbota. See generally ECF No. 31. Defendant sent Attorney Jacobs a letter threatening not only to sue him "for malpractice" and "for violati[ng] his Constitutional rights to due process," but also to file a "grievance with the Attorney Grievance Commission as well as the Bar Association." Id. at PageID.125. Apparently, Defendant's main grievance was that Attorney Jacobs filed the motion to suppress and the motion to quash without informing Defendant, despite Defendant's previous demands that Attorney Jacobs file those motions. See id.
To protect Defendant's interests, on March 10, 2021, this Court held a hearing by Zoom videoconference—with Defendant's consent—on the motion to withdraw, the motion to suppress, and the motion to quash. United States v. White , No. 20-CR-20416, 2021 WL 1253385, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2021) ; see Tr., ECF No. 92. As explained below, this turned out to be the first day of a two-day hearing.
During the March 10, 2021 hearing, Attorney Jacobs outlined his legal theories for the motion to suppress and the motion to quash. See id. at PageID.555. In summary, he explained that "if the search warrant is invalid, then going in the house and searching the trunk of the vehicle and seizing the guns are fruit of the poisonous tree, and it would ... be suppressed." Id.
Addressing his motion to withdraw, Attorney Jacobs explained that after meeting with Defendant several times, Defendant sent him a letter dated February 6, 2021. Id. at PageID.556. Attorney Jacobs elaborated that Defendant's letter stated: (1) Jacobs filed two unauthorized motions; (2) Jacobs refused to withdraw despite Defendant's instruction that he was to withdraw; (3) Jacobs was ineffective; (4) Defendant will sue Jacobs for malpractice; (5) Defendant will file a grievance with the Attorney Grievance Commission and the Bar Association; and (6) Defendant will sue Jacobs for violating his constitutional rights. Id. at PageID.556–57. Attorney Jacobs then contested the letter's allegations, stating that the letter was the first time Defendant ever told him to withdraw. Id. at PageID.557.
Attorney Jacobs elaborated that an earlier letter from December 2020 instructed him to file the motion to suppress and the motion to quash. See id. at PageID.557–58. Indeed, as this Court noted during the hearing, see id. , a December 6, 2020 letter that Defendant sent to Attorney Jacobs appears to direct him to file those two motions. See ECF No. 30 at PageID.118 (); id. at PageID.119–20 (). Attorney Jacobs then explained how he met with Defendant five times to provide copies of all the written discovery and discuss the video evidence. ECF No. 92 at PageID.559.
Defendant concurred with Attorney Jacobs's "effort to seek to withdraw" yet insisted on "bringing a motion to dismiss based upon his performance." Id. at PageID.560. The deficient performance, Defendant asserted, was that Attorney Jacobs filed the two motions that Defendant demanded but "without sending [him] a copy, without doing nothing, [and] without consulting [him]." Id. at PageID.560. Defendant continued that he "didn't authorize [Attorney Jacobs] to file them motions that he filed." Id. In Defendant's view, he demanded Attorney Jacobs to file motions alleging "that the agents in this case ... lied on [him] in they affidavits when they specifically said [he] was identified in the backyard wearing the clothing [he] was arrested in"—in other words, a motion to suppress. See id. at PageID.560–61. This Court then engaged in a fact-finding colloquy with the Government, see id. at PageID.561–70, and with Defendant, see id. at PageID.570–73.
Eventually, Defendant returned to his allegations against Attorney Jacobs. See id. at PageID.573. Defendant explained that even though his "godbrother" who was also arrested due to his involvement in the burglary had obtained the surveillance videos, Defendant had not yet seen them despite several demands to Attorney Jacobs. Id. at PageID.57...
To continue reading
Request your trial