- 5 -
respondent’s proposed stipulation of facts should not be deemed
established. Respondent also submitted a trial memorandum prior
to trial; petitioner did not.
On March 20, 2001, petitioner appeared at the call of this
case. Petitioner asked for an “extension”, primarily on grounds
that he had been unable to obtain an attorney and that alleged
medical reasons prevented him from proceeding. In support of his
medical claims, petitioner provided two documents. One was a
single-paragraph memorandum from petitioner stating that he was
“physically unable to undergo the stress of a public hearing or
trial” and also referencing the second document. This second
document was a letter dated May 11, 1999, from a physician at the
Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans’ Hospital to the Riverside
Office of the Jury Commissioner, recommending that petitioner be
permanently excused from “jury duty” on account of “multiple
medical problems”.
The Court then explained to petitioner that he could
represent himself and that the eleventh-hour allegations of
medical problems were not a sufficient basis for further delay.
Ample time and opportunity had existed prior to trial for
petitioner to prepare his case and to communicate with the Court
regarding any relevant situations. The Court therefore informed
petitioner that the Government would be permitted to proceed with
its case regardless of whether petitioner elected to stay and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011