You Have That Right

Light comedy from the 9th Circuit, which rejected the appeals of a couple guys convicted of mortgage fraud, and who appealed on the ground that their case was undermined by incompetent legal representation. Who was representing them? Uh, themselves. Some of this is classic: Conviction of "Fools" In Mortgage Fraud Upheld

Kurt F. Johnson of Sunnyvale and Dale Heineman of Union City sought to overturn their convictions by arguing that their courtroom behavior showed they were incompetent to represent themselves.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the two men had filed "meaningless and nonsensical documents" during the trial, insisted on wearing prison clothing in front of the jury, and delivered "off-the-wall comments" such as Johnson's statement to jurors that they should "enter a guilty plea for us."

But the court said Johnson and Heineman had been found mentally competent in a pretrial exam. The trial judge all but implored them to accept lawyers, the court said, and the men wound up putting on a defense of sorts, making opening statements and closing arguments and questioning witnesses.

"The record clearly shows that the defendants are fools, but that is not the same as being incompetent," Judge Barry Silverman said in the 3-0 ruling.

Under Supreme Court decisions dating back to 1975, he said, "they had the right to represent themselves and go down in flames if they wished."

Not sure what these guys thought they were accomplishing here. Did they intentionally try to blow up their own case, thinking they could get off on grounds of incompetent counsel? Sounds like the sort of hare-brained scheme that a couple of mortgage fraudsters would come up with. You often hear about people who know just enough law to be dangerous. In this case, that was all too true. Too bad you can't have guys like this on the other side of all of your cases...