ILNews

Man entitled to warning that conduct may waive right to counsel

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the finding that a man charged with murder is no longer indigent and that his difficult behavior caused him to waive or forfeit his right to appointed counsel. The appellate court concluded that the judge considered the defendant’s conduct, not his ability to pay, when finding him no longer indigent.

Stephen Gilmore was charged with murder in 2005. His first trial was declared a mistrial and he was able to post a cash bond. Gilmore received two court-appointed attorneys at that trial and expressed displeasure at the time with his attorneys, among other things.

When he was up for retrial in 2006, the two original attorneys filed a motion to withdraw representation, citing a major breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Several other court-appointed attorneys, including one from another county, eventually filed motions to withdraw their appointments, citing major disagreements in trial strategy and breakdowns in communication. Gilmore continually requested a new court-appointed attorney after the previous ones had withdrawn.

In January 2009, the trial court decided to review Gilmore’s indigency status and found no changes, but in September 2010, the trial court issued an order finding he was no longer indigent. The judge also said he waived his right to counsel by his “obstreperous conduct.” The judge noted the cases raise the question of whether there are limits on one’s right to indigent counsel.

At the September 2010 hearing, the judge noted that Gilmore’s income from Social Security was in excess of Federal Poverty Guidelines, his home’s property was assessed at $54,000, and the attorney fees for his first trial were $21,000. But the judge went on to say that a court must also consider a defendant’s conduct and behavior when re-evaluating indigency.

The appellate court was troubled by this statement because “it indicates that the trial court based its indigency determination in whole or in part on its assessment of Gilmore’s conduct, not his financial condition. We have found no such requirement with regard to an indigency status determination,” wrote Judge James Kirsch in Stephen L. Gilmore v. State of Indiana, No. 40A01-1011-CR-553.

Having found that Gilmore’s assets and income were insufficient for him to afford to pay for his own attorney, the court can’t then reverse its decision without finding a change in circumstances since its earlier decision or determining the previous decision was an error, wrote the judge.

Regarding his right to court-appointed counsel, the COA agreed with the trial court that although a defendant has a right to an attorney, if indigent, he doesn’t have the right to abuse it. Gilmore’s conduct appears to be along the line of a waiver by conduct or forfeiture with knowledge. Because of this, he’s entitled to a hearing during which he should be warned that if his difficult behavior persists, the trial court will find he has chosen self-representation by his own conduct.

“While not condoning Gilmore’s apparent obstreperous conduct, because those warnings were not given to Gilmore, we conclude that the trial court erred by finding that Gilmore had waived his right to counsel,” he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Well that's one side if this story...
    what about the other side--Mr. Gilmore's side? I understand that he has posted his side of the story, which apparently did not violate the comments policy, yet you removed his comments. Why? I think his comments help to round out the "mental picture" of this case...a case in which Mr. Gilmore has basically been railroaded from the beginning. He deserves to be heard.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT