United States v. Dougherty

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1972 · Criminal Law

473 F.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1972)

Updated July 19, 2026

Criminal Lawself-representationjury nullificationjury instructionspro sewaiver of counseltimelinessconstructive waiver

Facts

The defendants broke into Dow Chemical’s locked Washington office, scattered papers, damaged office property, and defaced the premises. Before trial began and before jury selection, several defendants moved to waive counsel and represent themselves, and the remaining defendants then made similar motions, all of which the trial judge denied based on concerns about lack of legal training, the multi-defendant setting, seriousness of the charges, and possible disruption or prejudice. During trial, the judge required counsel to handle motions, objections, and witness examination, though he allowed some defendants to make brief opening statements and testify in narrative form. The court also refused to instruct the jury that it could acquit regardless of law and evidence and refused to allow a nullification-based defense instruction.

Issue

Whether defendants who timely and intelligently waive counsel have a right to represent themselves at trial, and whether that right may be denied based on anticipated disruption in a multi-defendant criminal case. Also, whether defendants are entitled to an instruction informing the jury of a power to acquit contrary to the law and whether the charge actually given was coercive.

Rule

A defendant’s right under 28 U.S.C. § 1654 to conduct his own defense must be recognized when it is timely asserted before trial, accompanied by a valid waiver of counsel, and not itself waived expressly or constructively by disruptive behavior. Possible future disruption is not, by itself, a sufficient basis to deny self-representation at the outset; if a joint trial becomes unmanageable or unfair, the remedy is severance, and standby or amicus counsel may be used. A criminal defendant is not entitled to an instruction informing the jury of a power to disregard the law as instructed, and a court may instruct that political, religious, or moral motives are not legal defenses when that correctly states the law.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Chicago, Daniel Mercer is charged with felony property damage. Three weeks before trial and before jury selection, he asks to represent himself, clearly states he understands the charges and risks, and insists he does not want appointed counsel. The judge denies the request because the case involves several exhibits and Mercer has no legal training.

Was the judge’s denial proper?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, the right to conduct one’s own defense must be recognized when timely asserted before trial, accompanied by a valid waiver of counsel, and not waived by disruptive behavior. Lack of formal legal training, seriousness of the charges, or anticipated difficulty are not sufficient reasons to deny a timely pretrial request.