Judge Dennis Jacobs
At trial for multiple rape-related crimes, Ramos elected to appear pro se and to absent himself from the proceedings. The trial judge introduced Ramos' standby counsel to the voir dire panel as Ramos' lawyer. After a recess, the court attempted to correct the mischaracterization by reintroducing counsel as Ramos' "legal advisor." Ramos argued that this violated his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation, and appealed from the judgment of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Ramos argued that McKaskle v. Wiggins—a 1984 Supreme Court ruling instructing that a pro se defendant had a right to maintain control over his case and the trial court should not interfere with defendant's choice—supported his claim. After review, the court found that although it would have been best if the court had not made the initial introduction, the mischaracterization did not cross McKaskle's "substantial" interruption threshold for a constitutional violation. The court disagreed with Ramos' contention that the momentary introduction crossed the line. Accordingly, the court ruled that Ramos was not deprived of his right to self-representation, and affirmed the district court's decision denying his claim for a writ of habeas corpus.
