Judicial Mistakes

Minn. R. Crim. P. 17.03, Subd. 5 sets out the procedure that the court MUST follow
before plea or trial when two or more defendants are jointly charged or will be tried
jointly, and two or more of them are represented by the same counsel.
http://ebenchbk.law.umn.edu/index.php/joint_representation_of_codefendants_in_a_criminal_case
11. INADEQUATE WAIVER OF RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY AN
ATTORNEY WHEN DEFENDANT IS PROCEEDING PRO SE
When a criminal defendant asks to represent himself, the court must determine (1)
whether the request is clear, unequivocal, and timely, and (2) whether the defendant
knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel. State v. Richards, 456 N.W.2d
260, 263 (Minn. 1990). This constitutional requirement is satisfied when the trial court
informs the accused of the nature of the charges against him, of his right to be
counseled regarding his plea, and of the range of allowable punishments attendant
upon the entry of a guilty plea. Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 81 (2004); In addition to
determining that a defendant who seeks to waive counsel is competent, a trial court
must satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary.
State v. Camacho, 561 N.W.2d 160 (Minn. 1997) citing to Godinez v. Moran, 509
U.S. 389, 399, 400 (1993); State v. Kellogg, 2004 WL 422703, at 2 (Minn. Ct. App.
Mar. 9, 2004) (listing topics that the trial judge asked defendant about before allowing
him to proceed pro se); State v. Hawanchak, 669 N.W.2d 912, 915 (Minn. App. 2003)
(defendant’s right to counsel was violated when there was no record of a knowing and
intelligent waiver of his right to counsel); State v. Jones, 772 N.W.2d 496, 505 (Minn.
Page 27 of 166