The Defendant: No more witnesses.
The Court: Okay. You have no witnesses.
The Defendant: No more witnesses, no, sir.
The Court: Do you wish to make a legal argument to me?
The Defendant: Your Honor, is there any way I could see the log on certification and radar guns?
The Court: You’re representing yourself. You’re going to have to find all that information.
The Defendant: So I would have to find that information on my own?
The Court: It would be incumbent on you and your burden to bring that forward if you feel it was necessary at this hearing or trial.
The Defendant: Is there any way we could set a continuance for a few days and—so I could get that evidence?
The Court: It was your choice to go forward on the suppression hearing today, Mr. Shabazz. Do you have any legal arguments you wish to make concerning the—your motion to suppress?
Shabazz, with the help of standby counsel, then attempted to articulate his legal basis for suppression. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied his motion. At that point, Shabazz informed the court he would need help at trial, and the trial court reappointed defense counsel to represent him at trial. Shabazz was found guilty at trial and sentenced to thirty years. In this appeal, Shabazz argues that the suppression hearing was a critical stage of the proceedings, that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel at that hearing, and that he should be granted a new trial.
8
