United States v. Clark

Clark entered a credit union wearing a two‐tone baseball hat and sunglasses, walked out, and got into his blue Ford Crown Victoria. Days later, a man fitting Clark’s description robbed a bank wearing a two‐tone baseball hat and sunglasses and left in a blue Ford Crown Victoria. Authorities arrested Clark. A magistrate judge found that Clark waived his right to counsel for proceedings before that court. The district court reconsidered on the government’s motion and questioned Clark about proceeding pro se. Clark decided against self‐representation, was convicted, and argued that the district court infringed on his Sixth Amendment rights by improperly reconsidering an issue already decided by the magistrate. The Seventh Circuit rejected the claim, noting that the magistrate’s ruling was limited to Clark’s initial appearance and that the addition of DNA evidence gave the court reason to question whether Clark understood the risks of going pro se. The credit union evidence was properly admitted for a non‐propensity purpose, to establish Clark’s identity. Expressing discomfort with the introduction of a video and witness testimony to characterize Clark’s actions as “casing” the credit union, the court characterized any errors in introducing more than a photo and failing to weigh the probative and prejudicial values of the evidence on the record as harmless. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law