United States of America v. Thomas E. Noble

Wilmington, Delaware criminal law lawyer represented defendant charged with possession of child pornography.



A grand jury indicted Noble in February 2018 on one

count of attempted receipt of child pornography by someone

previously convicted of a child pornography offense, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), 2252(b)(1) and

2256(2)(A), and one count of possession of child pornography

by someone previously convicted of a child pornography

offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(b), 2252(b)(2)

and 2256(2)(A). Shortly after being indicted, Noble indicated

to a Magistrate Judge that he wished to represent himself pro

se; the judge conducted a colloquy to ensure that Noble was

knowingly and voluntarily waiving his right to counsel. The

judge granted Noble's request to proceed pro se, and appointed

an attorney from the Federal Public Defender's Office as

standby counsel.



A few months thereafter, in July 2018, Noble

announced at a status hearing that he was invoking his "Fifth

Amendment right to be silent.” Supplemental Appendix

("Supp. App.”) 70. Noble had filed numerous pro se motions

accusing the District Judge of criminal conduct, alleging that

all attorneys and judges within this circuit were controlled by

the "illuminati,” and demanding that his case be transferred to

a court outside the Third Circuit. He stated that he intended to

remain silent until his case had been transferred and he had

been appointed new counsel.1 From that date through his trial

and sentencing, Noble did not speak in court except on two

occasions, largely refused to acknowledge or look at the

District Judge while attending hearings, and returned all legal

mail to the court.



In April 2019, almost ten months after the

announcement of his silence, the District Court scheduled a

hearing to determine whether Noble had waived or forfeited

his right to represent himself. The court asked Noble a series

of questions regarding his ability to represent himself. Noble

refused to answer any questions or acknowledge the court. The

court ordered Noble to answer each question, and found that

Noble had violated the court's orders twelve times by not

answering them. The court determined that Noble's behavior

was obstructionist and that Noble had therefore waived and

forfeited his right to represent himself. In May 2019, the court

appointed Noble's standby counsel as his attorney.2



Noble was tried by a jury, convicted on both counts, and

sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment. His counsel from

the Federal Public Defender's office filed a notice of appeal

and then filed a motion to withdraw. That motion was granted

and substitute counsel was appointed.

Affirmed.