Entry No. 017 · Recovered from the Record
Two Sworn Accounts of the Same Meeting
A notarized affidavit and a filed motion, describing the same conversation in materially different terms
Three Marks of Diligence AwardedBoth documents compared here are sworn. Where two sworn accounts of the same event diverge, the divergence itself — independent of which account is correct — is worth examining plainly.
Two Sworn Accounts, Compared
“Appellant has carefully consulted with Movant, and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily exercises his right to proceed pro se.”
Application to Withdraw as Counsel, filed with the Superior Court
“The discussion… was brief and without conclusion… only for a moment… as the main topic was [a separate] hearing.”
A notarized affidavit from a witness present at the meeting
Language mirroring the standard for a valid waiver of the right to counsel — “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.”
Application to Withdraw as Counsel
“[Counsel] did not ask… any detailed or follow-up questions to confirm understanding, consent, or waiver of representation… [The defendant] did NOT CONSENT to [counsel] representing him… during this conversation.”
The same notarized affidavit
A subsequent motion describes the conversation as occurring “in person and with witnesses (including Defendant’s ADA Advocate…) present.”
A later motion filed in the Court of Common Pleas
“[The defendant] did not have his ADA Advocate at this meeting and was not in a position to engage in a careful consultative discussion.”
The same notarized affidavit
Not Asserted
What This Entry Does Not Claim
That appellate counsel knowingly made a false statement to the court. That the affidavit’s account is necessarily more accurate than the motion’s characterization. That any rule of professional conduct was violated. That the Superior Court’s subsequent handling of the appeal was improper. This entry documents a discrepancy between two sworn accounts of the same meeting — not a legal conclusion about which account controls, or why the difference exists.
Present Status
The appeal this motion was part of was later withdrawn, over an incomplete appellate record, not decided on its merits. This discrepancy — like the others documented across this collection’s related entries — was never resolved by any appellate ruling.
Companion Entries
This entry parallels a companion entry on the same waiver question at the trial level, and connects to a companion entry on ADA accommodation access through the advocate-absence detail above. The trial-level “waiver vs. forfeiture” discrepancy in the court’s own opinion is documented separately as well.
See Entry No. 012 → See Entry No. 013 → See Entry No. 015 →Marks of Diligence Awarded
Present Standing
Citizen Archivist
“Two sworn accounts of the same meeting. The reader compares them directly.”
Curatorial Note
Ascended under the Registry Heavy Surgery Criteria. Appointed appellate counsel and the witness who provided the affidavit are both referenced by role rather than by name; the witness’s role is described as distinct from the formally designated ADA Advocate discussed elsewhere in this collection, preserving a distinction the original affidavit itself makes.
This entry’s already-restrained “Not Asserted” framing is preserved largely as written — it was doing the right work before ascension, and this collection’s standard is to build on strong existing discipline rather than replace it unnecessarily.
This entry was held pending the underlying appeal’s resolution. That appeal has since been withdrawn over an incomplete appellate record, not decided on the merits; this entry states that plainly. The original Registry entry remains unaffected and unaltered on the live Registry site.