Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Bill of Exceptions — United States v. Nichelle Henson, Criminal No. ELH-21-470 (Dkt. 67, D. Md.)

Bill of Exceptions — United States v. Nichelle Henson, Criminal No. ELH-21-470 (Dkt. 67, D. Md.)

Summary

Nichelle Henson, the defendant in Criminal No. ELH-21-470 in the District of Maryland, files this Bill of Exceptions to the court's order dated 04/25/2023 appointing standby counsel. The filing argues that standby counsel violates the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation, limits the defendant's equal access to material information and hinders trial preparation, because standby counsel could advise on legal matters, speak in court, review the defendant's files and speak with witnesses. Henson also disputes the order's account of a plan to hire standby counsel, saying the statement was that an attorney might be hired "for the purpose of communicating with the government." The filing asks the court to vacate the appointment and allow self-representation, citing Faretta v. California, Godinez v. Moran and Martinez v. Court of Appeals of California.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                  )
                                           )
                  V.                       )      Criminal No. ELH-21-470
                                           )
 NICHELLE HENSON                           )
                                           )




                                  Bill of Exceptions


The Defendant, Nichelle Henson, hereby files this Bill of Exceptions to the Order of the
Court dated 04/25/2023.

Paragraph 2 of the Order states that the Court has appointed standby counsel for the
Defendant. The Defendant objects to this appointment on the following grounds:

   x   The appointment of standby counsel violates the Defendant's right to self-
       representation.
   x   The appointment of standby counsel will make it difficult or impossible for the
       Defendant to have equitable or equal access to material information pertinent to
       the Defendant's preparation of his case.
   x   The appointment of standby counsel will hinder the Defendant's ability to prepare
       for trial.

The Defendant's right to self-representation is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. The Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for
his defense."

The appointment of standby counsel interferes with the Defendant's right to self-
representation in two ways. First, standby counsel will have the authority to advise the
Defendant on legal matters. This advice may be contrary to the Defendant's own wishes
and may undermine the Defendant's ability to make his own decisions about his case.
Second, standby counsel will have the authority to speak on the Defendant's behalf in
court. This authority may prevent the Defendant from speaking for himself and from
presenting his own case to the jury.

The appointment of standby counsel will also make it difficult or impossible for the
Defendant to have equitable or equal access to material information pertinent to the
Defendant's preparation of his case. Standby counsel will have the authority to review
all of the Defendant's files and to speak with all of the Defendant's witnesses. This
authority will give standby counsel an unfair advantage over the Defendant and will
make it difficult or impossible for the Defendant to prepare his case effectively.

Finally, the appointment of standby counsel will hinder the Defendant's ability to prepare
for trial. The Defendant will be forced to share his time and attention with standby
counsel, and he will not be able to focus on his own defense. This will make it more
difficult for the Defendant to prepare his case and to present his best defense to the
jury.

For all of these reasons, the Defendant objects to the appointment of standby counsel.

Paragraph 3 of the Order states that the Defendant "asserts that she anticipates hiring
her own standby counsel." The Defendant objects to this characterization of her
statement. The Defendant did not assert that she would hire standby counsel. Rather,
the Defendant stated that she would hire an attorney if necessary "for the purpose of
communicating with the government."

The Defendant's statement is accurate. The Defendant does not need or want standby
counsel. However, the Defendant may need to hire an attorney to communicate with the
government. The government has a history of refusing to provide information to the
Defendant, and the Defendant may need an attorney to help him obtain the information
he needs to prepare his case.

For all of these reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court vacate its
Order appointing standby counsel and that the Court allow the Defendant to represent
himself.

Respectfully submitted,

Nichelle Henson
Case Law

  x   Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)
  x   Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 429 (1993)
  x   Martinez v. Court of Appeals of California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000)

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.mdd.504329.67.0.pdf
Size
85,413 bytes
SHA-256
faa7b4df98a5c0ea9a497de08cbaf5e2a3a0bba84ca235ce85afa26e20552aab
Our copy
gov.uscourts.mdd.504329.67.0.pdf
Original
archive.org
Back to top