Mr. Darrell Bolden of St. Louis County, Missouri was tried and convicted of three counts of first-degree robbery, one count of attempted first-degree robbery and three counts of armed criminal action. In March 2014, he was sentenced to life imprisonment on each of the first-degree property counts, 15 years for attempted first-degree robbery and 25 years for each of the armed criminal action counts. All told, he received life +25 years.
He appealed his case on eight different grounds, one of which included the court’s refusal to allow him to represent himself a trial. This particular compliant is the most important element of this case.
Just a bit of background before we continue. Mr. Bolden decided fairly early on that he wanted to represent himself. His reasoning was this “I got to because [I am] a Moor.”
He’s essentially arguing that given his status as a [sovereign citizen] Moor, he can’t have anyone represent him.
The judge went out of his way to warn Mr. Bolden that he was making a serious mistake. Mr. Bolden would respond in this type of manner: “I don’t need no lawyer. You are trying to force something on me that I don’t need. I told you I don’t need a lawyer. I am my lawyer. I’m a Moor. I told you that. You all kidnapped me basically.”
Here’s a little bit more on the back and forth between the court and Mr. Bolden.
“THE COURT: Now I know you’re not going to agree with everything he tells you or everything he advises you, but I think you would be making a horrible, horrible mistake if you decided to represent yourself alone, because if I agree or enter an order that you are going to represent yourself pro se, you will represent yourself pro se. I will not have standby counsel. There will be no one sitting with you during the trial…”
THE DEFENDANT: “I understand that, but what I’m saying is, by me being a Moor, actually a lawyer cannot represent a Moor…”
The judge repeatedly tried to warn Mr. Bolden not to make this decision to represent himself. Mr. Bolden was adamant that he wanted represent himself and his logic is based on the idea that a Moor cannot be represented by a lawyer.
I’ve always known that Moor’s did not want to be represented by lawyers but I didn’t know that they “couldn’t” be represented by lawyers. Mr. Bolden did not elaborate on why lawyers cannot represent him or Moors in general.
The judge ultimately ruled against Mr. Bolden being able to represent himself.
On appeal, the court noted that if a defendant wants to represent himself, and he’s competent enough to do so, then he should be allowed to do so.
“Courts have repeatedly concluded that defendants may represent themselves despite having frivolous beliefs about the law…Unless other aggravating factors are present, courts typically do not deny a defendant’s initial motion to proceed pro se, but instead revoke the previously granted self-representation if the defendant subsequently engages in obstructionist behavior” and in this case, they did not find that Mr. Bolden was particularly disruptive in hearings.
“In addition, a court is not permitted to consider whether the defendant “could have ably defended himself…But despite the potential ill-consequences of self-representation, we permit it because of our society’s respect for individual dignity, once the individual has been fairly advised of consequences and has made a knowing and intelligent decision.”
On that basis, the appellate court determined that Mr. Bolden was unconstitutionally denied a Faretta hearing (the hearing use to determine if one is able to represent themselves) and has ordered the state of Missouri to commence proceedings for such a hearing and subsequently for the defendant to receive a new trial.
In this case, the sovereign citizen won the right to such a hearing and a the new trial because it was determined that the judge did not provide the hearing necessary to determine if Mr. Bolden could properly defend himself.
In all likelihood, the judge was attempting to protect Mr. Bolden from making a poor decision and the appellate court is essentially saying yes but even if it was a bad decision, it is his decision to make.
The moral of this story seems to be the judge should have held the proper hearing to determine if the defendant was competent and able to represent himself and let him represent himself even if it was not in his best interest to go pro se in a case in which he was facing life.
Referencing decision: Bolden v. Vandergriff decided February 22, 2022.