Author Question: Was the trial judge's refusal to allow Tennis to proceed pro se without specifically ruling on his ... (Read 38 times)

Shelles · **on:** Aug 17, 2018

Was the trial judge's refusal to allow Tennis to proceed pro se without specifically ruling on his request appropriate under Indiana v. Edwards (2008) ?

Gabby Tennis, 19, was convicted for first-degree murder in the 2003 killing of 91 year-old Albert Vassella. His codefendant and girlfriend, Sophia Adams, 16, pled guilty to second-degree murder and testified against Tennis at trial. Tennis was sentenced to death. The motive was money to pay Liza Boltos, Sophia Adams's mother, for the right to marry Sophia. Tennis claims that he was in Vasella's house but did not murder him. Liza Boltos had been a house cleaner for Vassella. Tennis made two requests to represent himself. In April 2005, Tennis filed a motion to dismiss counsel, alleging that counsel failed to perfect a defense, ignored Tennis's attempts to contact him, and refused to investigate Liza Boltos's participation in the murder. At a hearing the judge denied the motion to dismiss counsel. In June 2005 Tennis filed another motion to dismiss counsel, alleging a conflict of interest with his counsel and that counsel failed to prepare for trial. In a hearing the trial court asked Tennis for substantiation. Tennis referred to an out-of-court verbal confrontations between his family and counsel. Tennis stated, I refuse to go to trial with him. I would like to go pro se, instead of having two prosecutors against me, I'll do it myself. Even though I don't know what I'm doing, I will have a better fighting chance. The trial court found that counsel was competent and did not address Tennis's alternative request to represent himself. Tennis then made two additional written motions to represent himself.
What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Was the initial entry into the warehouse justified as a fire inspection exigency, allowing the introduction of the marijuana to convict O'Keefe?

On a July evening a power line running between a power pole and a metal warehouse, which O'Keefe rented, was arcing and sparking. Melting wire from the power line caused molten metal to drip onto the ground, which ignited a grass fire approximately 10 feet from the warehouse. Fire officials responded and, after the grass fire was contained, the captain of the fire department arrived. The captain determined that an electrical problem inside the warehouse could have caused the power line to arc and spark and that such an electrical problem could have caused a fire inside. There were no visible signs that the warehouse was on fire, but the captain was unable to see inside the building because the windows were blackened. The fire captain also concluded that an electrical problem inside could again cause the power line to arc and spark, allowing another fire to ignite once electricity was restored to the warehouse. The captain therefore concluded that it was necessary to enter the warehouse to inspect the circuits. A firefighter entered the warehouse through a second floor window and noticed drying marijuana plants and the odor of marijuana. Once the captain could see marijuana plants he notified the police. Responding police secured the warehouse and obtained and executed a search warrant.
What will be an ideal response?