Facts:
Appeal by M from his convictions for eight offences relating to the illicit drug trade. He was initially charged with 11 offences, but a fresh indictment, filed in 2006, charged him with conspiracy to export marijuana, conspiracy to traffic in marijuana, four counts of possession of proceeds of crime and two counts of money laundering. The trial judge found that M accumulated large quantities of marijuana and exported it to country U at uncontrolled border crossing points. M had a legal counsel until his trial, where he was self-represented. The counsel merely assisted him and did not appear in court. The case was complicated. There were 60 witnesses and 200 intercepted telephone conversations. M was provided with a memorandum explaining trial procedures, fundamental principles and rules of evidence. M's defence strategy centered around the claim that he was not the ringleader of the conspiracy. The judge met with M and the prosecution daily during the course of the trial to ensure that M was ready for the next day. The judge helped him question witnesses, at times preventing him from asking questions that would elicit unhelpful responses. The judge commented several times that M was doing a good job representing himself. In instructing the jury on the intent required for conspiracy, the judge stated that the jury had to find that no reasonable doubt existed about whether the intent had been demonstrated before applying the common sense inference that M intended the natural and probable results of his actions.
Main issue:
Self-representation of a respondent.
Outcome:
Appeal dismissed.
M understood the charges he was facing including the law relating to conspiracy. He was adequately instructed on the rule against hearsay. Although the judge should have instructed M on the possibility that he could have wiretap evidence edited, the judge did an adequate job editing the wiretap transcripts to remove irrelevant and prejudicial information. Conversations during which M spoke about marijuana production were properly assessed before the jury, despite the fact that M was not defending a production charge. Marijuana production was the source of the offense of crime proceeds and money laundered that was referenced in the indictment. Severance of the possession and money laundering counts were not necessary to ensure a fair trial. The judge provided M with adequate assistance in cross-examining witnesses despite the fact that some of his questions elicited answers that did not help his case. The appointment of amicus curiae was unnecessary given the way M handled his defense. There was no evidence that any jurors improperly considered the transcript of the intercepted calls. The judge adequately got the point across to the jury that, in order to convict M on the conspiracy charges, they had to find that he intended to be a member of the conspiracy.
