## Facts

- Kevin Elwood Krzyske was indicted on ten federal income-tax counts, including willful failure to file returns and attempts to evade or defeat tax.
- At trial, Krzyske advanced “tax protestor” arguments and sought to raise jury nullification.
- Krzyske requested a jury instruction on jury nullification; the district court refused.
- Defense counsel referenced nullification in closing argument.
- During deliberations, the jury asked the court to explain “jury nullification.”
- The trial judge responded that there was “no such thing as valid jury nullification,” instructed jurors to follow the court’s legal instructions, and stated that willfully returning a verdict contrary to the law would violate their oath.
- The jury acquitted Krzyske on five counts and convicted him on five counts; the court entered judgment and imposed imprisonment and fines.
- Krzyske proceeded pro se with standby counsel after declining appointed counsel; the district court treated his conduct as a knowing and voluntary waiver and denied further delay to obtain counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct on jury nullification and by telling the deliberating jury there is no “valid” jury nullification and it must follow the law as instructed.
2. Whether Krzyske’s waiver of counsel and self-representation were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and whether the court abused its discretion by requiring trial to proceed without further delay for counsel.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the district court did not err in refusing to instruct on jury nullification.
- The court held the judge’s response directing the jury to follow the law, and rejecting “valid” nullification, was proper.
- The court held Krzyske validly waived counsel under the circumstances and that denying additional delay to obtain counsel was not an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A jury may have the practical power to acquit despite law and facts, but a defendant has no entitlement to a jury-nullification instruction.
- A trial court may instruct that jurors must apply the law as given by the court and need not entertain nullification.
- A waiver of counsel is effective when the record shows the accused was reasonably offered counsel and understandingly rejected the offer; validity is assessed from all the circumstances.
- The right to counsel of choice is not absolute and may be limited to prevent delay and maintain orderly trial management.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a tax-crime conviction where the trial judge refused to instruct on jury nullification and told jurors to follow the court’s legal instructions, and it found the defendant’s decision to proceed pro se with standby counsel was a valid waiver of the right to counsel despite late efforts to obtain representation.


United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1988)