By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Sniper John Allen Muhammad's attorneys are appealing his murder convictions in Montgomery County, arguing that the trial judge erred by allowing him to conduct his defense and by not giving his former defense attorneys a "meaningful opportunity" to prove that he was not competent to stand trial.

Post-conviction appeals are routine, but the two focal issues on the appellate brief, filed earlier this month, are noteworthy because they are reminiscent of the dispute between Muhammad and his Montgomery County public defenders on the eve of trial. The Maryland Public Defender office is handling the appeal.

Muhammad and his accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, were each convicted on six counts of first-degree murder in Montgomery in the October 2002 sniper shootings that terrorized the Washington area.

They are incarcerated in Virginia, which has primary custody of them. Each was convicted on one count of first-degree murder there. Muhammad is on death row, and Malvo was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Days before his May 2006 trial in Montgomery began, Muhammad wrote a letter to Montgomery Circuit Court Judge James L. Ryan saying he was dissatisfied with his attorneys, Montgomery Public Defender Paul DeWolfe and deputy Brian Shefferman, and asking to be allowed to represent himself.

Ryan ruled that Muhammad was competent to stand trial and permitted him to discharge DeWolfe and Shefferman, two experienced and well-respected attorneys who had spent months preparing for the high-profile trial. The court appointed three volunteer stand-by attorneys who guided Muhammad during the month-long trial.

Muhammad kept the substance of his defense shrouded during most of the trial and ultimately argued that his prosecution was an elaborate government conspiracy. He took a few jabs at state witnesses and came face to face with Malvo, the state's star witness.

Before the trial began, DeWolfe and Shefferman gave the judge a letter from a psychiatrist who had evaluated Muhammad and concluded that he was schizophrenic. The public defenders asked Ryan to hold a hearing so they could present evidence that Muhammad was not competent to stand trial, but Ryan declined, finding Muhammad competent after asking him a series of questions.

Maryland Public Defender Nancy S. Forster noted in the brief that Ryan sided with Muhammad even though Muhammad asked to have his three children act as stand-by counsel and repeatedly "referred to himself in the third person." Forster also argued that the trial should have been moved to another county.