United States v. Ziegler

• Decision Date: 14 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-4832,19-4832
• Citation: 1 F.4th 219
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. Joseph R. ZIEGLER, Defendant – Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

1 F.4th 219

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.Joseph R. ZIEGLER, Defendant – Appellant.

No. 19-4832

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: January 28, 2021

Decided: June 14, 2021

ARGUED: David O. Schles, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID SCHLES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Monica D. Coleman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael B. Stuart, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Richardson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Diaz joined.

RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge:

After wrecking his car, Joseph Ziegler falsely claimed to be an Assistant United States Attorney to avoid charges and retrieve his impounded car. The real United States Attorney prosecuted him for impersonating a federal officer. Though not a lawyer, Ziegler waived his right to counsel and represented himself at trial. The jury convicted him.

Ziegler now claims that the district court erred in permitting Ziegler to represent himself because he was incapable of doing so and because the district court failed to make necessary inquiries into his mental competency to waive counsel. He also argues the evidence does not show that he "acted" as a federal officer. We review both issues deferentially and find no error. The district judge thoughtfully evaluated Ziegler's request to waive counsel and represent himself. Having observed Ziegler firsthand, the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Ziegler to waive his right to counsel and represent himself. And the jury's guilty verdict is supported by the evidence. So we affirm.

I. Background

A. Events leading to charges

In April 2019, Clay County Deputy Sheriff Michael Morris saw a car speed past him. Deputy Morris pursued, only to find the car crashed in a private driveway. A disheveled and erratic Ziegler sat behind the wheel, and Deputy Morris suspected he had been drinking. Deputy Morris handcuffed and detained Ziegler in his police car and waited on another deputy to conduct a DUI investigation. After Deputy Ryan Thomas arrived, he inspected the car for damage and noticed empty beer cans inside. Deputy Thomas approached the disheveled Ziegler and smelled alcohol. When asked if he had been drinking, Ziegler claimed that he did not "have time for this." J.A. 357. Ziegler refused to take a field-sobriety test or breathalyzer. And after consenting to a blood sample, he then refused to sign the consent form.

Ziegler said that he would rather go to jail than deal with the inquiries because the charges would be dropped. He explained this was inevitable because he was an Assistant United States Attorney working for Mike Stuart (the district's United States Attorney). Ziegler claimed that the deputies did not have jurisdiction to detain him; that he did not need a driver's license to drive in a state where he did not reside; and that he had been pulled over multiple times over thirty years and "gotten out of all of them" because he was an Assistant United States Attorney. J.A. 449. He also cited "a bunch of U.S. Codes" and argued that the Supreme Court had ruled that he did not need a driver's license. J.A. 449; see also J.A. 450 (Deputy Morris testifying that Ziegler "said that he was an attorney, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney and he knew Mike Stuart"). Despite his claims, Ziegler was arrested for driving under the influence, reckless driving, and driving without insurance, a driver's license, or vehicle registration.

At the courthouse, Ziegler told a magistrate assistant, "I'm an Assistant U.S. Attorney and I should not be here." J.A. 481. Ziegler then spoke to the magistrate judge during his initial appearance, explaining that he was an "Assistant U.S. Attorney" and wanted to represent himself. J.A. 512. The magistrate judge also testified that Ziegler said to courtroom officials that he would "take care of this" or that this case would not be there long as he was "going to get this moved to Federal Court." J.A. 515; see also id . ("I know Mike Stuart ... In a few days I'll go down and see him and get all this worked out.").

Ziegler posted bond and went to get his car from King's Trucking, where it had been towed after the crash. Because Ziegler lacked proper documentation, King's Trucking refused to release the car. During the resulting argument, Ziegler told the owner that he did not need documentation because he was both a sovereign citizen and an Assistant United States Attorney. Ziegler claimed, "I am a federal prosecutor. ... You are going to be named in my lawsuit that I'm filing." J.A. 548. When his demands were still denied, he left empty handed.

Ziegler then went to talk to the state prosecutor, who explained he could not speak to him without his attorney. Ziegler again claimed he was an Assistant United States Attorney working with Mike Stuart on special assignment and would represent himself. Despite the state prosecutor's request to end the conversation, Ziegler continued to talk about his case and his constitutional rights. Ziegler also demanded help getting his car back from the impound. The state prosecutor interrupted several times to ask for his supervisor's name, but Ziegler refused to answer beyond claiming he worked for "Mike Stuart." The state prosecutor then contacted the United States Attorney's Office and learned that Ziegler was not an Assistant United States Attorney.

Based on these incidents, Ziegler was federally indicted on two counts of falsely pretending to be an officer of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 912.¹ The first count alleged that Ziegler falsely impersonated an Assistant United States Attorney to the deputies and state officials. The second alleged he claimed to be an Assistant United States Attorney to demand his car back as a thing of value.

B. Pretrial proceedings

Ziegler was at first represented by a public defender. But he sought to represent himself pro se. So the public defender asked the court to conduct an ex-parte hearing to resolve the issue. At the hearing, Ziegler represented that he was able to defend himself and was "confident" that he would prevail. J.A. 20; see also J.A. 22 (noting his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself and explaining, "I'm not incompetent to handle my own affairs"). And he explained that had he known the public defender would not file his requested pretrial motions, he would have done so on his own since he could "do it off the top of [his] head." J.A. 23. The public defender countered that "some of the motions" Ziegler wanted filed were meritless. J.A. 23–24. But the public defender said that he did not "have any questions with [Ziegler's] legal competency at" that point based on Ziegler's "base of experience." J.A. 19.

Ziegler discussed his "experience," suggesting that he represented himself in a prior prosecution—and had that conviction reversed—because "the prosecution got caught falsifying transcripts in the end of the trial." J.A. 18. Later in the hearing, though, it emerged that Ziegler did not represent himself in that appeal and that his conviction was reversed because the court failed to follow proper state statutory procedures in allowing Ziegler's self-representation before the trial court. See People v. Ziegler , No. 192701, 1998 WL 1988750, at *1–2 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 1998). The court thus questioned whether Ziegler intended to represent himself only to again claim that his waiver of counsel was invalid (just as he had done in the previous case). Ziegler assured the court that he had no such intent. During the court's thorough colloquy, Ziegler suggested that he "studied law" and received a degree in "criminal law." J.A. 29. Ziegler claimed, "I have published cases in which I've represented myself. I'm very familiar with all 27 amendments of the United States Constitution, various SCOTUS cases, and I've successfully assisted prisoners inside of jails and prisons across America." Id .

The court then asked Ziegler about his knowledge of the Federal Rules of Evidence, to which Ziegler listed several rules and explained his knowledge came from his familiarity with state rules that in many cases are identical to their federal counterparts. He also noted his familiarity with "writs of habeas corpus, coram nobis, and the like." J.A. 33. Ziegler asserted a familiarity with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure stemming from "doing criminal appeals for various prisoners and being—witnessing various trials that's took place in Federal Courthouses, including the City of Detroit." J.A. 33–34.

The court advised Ziegler that he would be better served by allowing the public defender to represent him but acknowledged that Ziegler "had some experience." J.A. 34. The court again questioned Ziegler's desire to proceed pro se, to which Ziegler responded, "Absolutely, Your Honor, yes." J.A. 35. Ziegler affirmed that this was a voluntary decision and did not result from any threats or promises. The court then found that Ziegler's waiver of his right to counsel was knowing, voluntary, and unequivocal. All parties accepted this. And the court appointed the public defender to serve as stand-by counsel.

Ziegler proceeded pro se with his motion to suppress and several other motions. During these proceedings, Ziegler made several odd remarks. For example, when Ziegler suggested that he wanted to introduce evidence about his reversed conviction to support a prosecutorial-misconduct claim, the court questioned its relevance. To this, Ziegler offered a rambling response:

Because they're completely false, Your Honor, and we have a whole history of the United States doing a lot of things concerning an FBI director six years ago disclosing to the public that for 20 years, they never had any DNA evidence science that people were executed and convicted of. He came forward. He came

...