Background
Police arrested Alexander James Haupt on a misdemeanor stalking charge involving 17-year-old AM and obtained a warrant to search his cellphone for evidence related to the stalking allegations. After officers discovered naked photographs of AM, they obtained a second warrant and found images of AM naked or performing sexual acts, communications indicating that Haupt had sold the images, and an audio recording in which he tried to coerce AM into withdrawing a criminal complaint. Haupt was charged with producing, distributing, and possessing child sexually abusive material, using a computer to commit a crime, and obstructing justice.
After difficulties with retained and appointed counsel, the trial court made Haupt represent himself with his appointed attorney serving only in an advisory role. While unrepresented, Haupt moved to suppress data and photographs obtained during the first search of his cellphone. The court heard that motion on July 2, 2019, without advising Haupt of his continuing right to counsel, and later denied it. Counsel was reappointed when trial was about to begin, but Haupt was convicted on all charges after a two-day trial.
The Court of Appeals affirmed twice, ultimately concluding on remand that Haupt had not been deprived of counsel during a critical stage. The Michigan Supreme Court considered whether Haupt validly waived or forfeited his right to counsel and whether the uncounseled proceedings included a critical stage.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court held that Haupt did not validly waive his right to counsel after appointed counsel sought to withdraw. Haupt never unequivocally requested self-representation, and the trial court did not adequately advise him of the charges, the risks of proceeding without counsel, or his opportunity to consult another attorney. Assuming without deciding that Michigan recognizes forfeiture of counsel through misconduct, the Court also held that Haupt’s conduct was not the purposeful, defiant, and exceptionally egregious obstruction necessary to support forfeiture.
The Court further held that the July 2 suppression hearing was a critical stage under the circumstances. The hearing concerned cellphone evidence directly bearing on Haupt’s guilt, and Haupt had to litigate its admissibility without counsel. His attorney’s later motion to suppress different evidence on different grounds did not restore the opportunity Haupt lost, and reappointing counsel immediately before trial did not cure the earlier uncounseled ruling.
Because deprivation of counsel at a critical stage is structural error requiring automatic reversal, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals, vacated Haupt’s convictions and sentences, and remanded for a new trial. The Court did not hold that every suppression hearing is necessarily a critical stage.
Key Takeaways
- A court may not impose self-representation without an unequivocal request and a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver satisfying Michigan’s required safeguards.
- On these facts, a suppression hearing involving evidence central to guilt was a critical stage because the defendant lacked counsel and could not later fully recover the lost opportunity.
- Standby or advisory counsel does not cure an invalid waiver, and denial of counsel at a critical stage is structural error requiring automatic reversal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a defendant’s conflict with counsel does not itself authorize a trial court to force the defendant to proceed alone. Courts must establish a valid waiver on the record before permitting self-representation, even when prior counsel has withdrawn and the case has experienced delays.
The ruling also provides a fact-specific framework for evaluating whether a suppression hearing is a critical stage: courts should consider the importance of the challenged evidence and whether a later proceeding meaningfully restored the opportunity lost while the defendant was unrepresented.