Police say D'Marco Mobley had lofty aspirations, telling one of his alleged victims he "wanted to be known as the biggest gangster in Seattle."

Mobley, 21, is facing trial this month on charges of robbery, kidnapping, rape, promoting prostitution and promoting the commercial sexual abuse of a minor. The charges result from his alleged pimping of three young women.

Mobley is a "pro se" defendant, meaning he will act as his attorney during his trial in King County Superior Court. It also means the three alleged victims will have to answer questions posed by Mobley, who prosecutors say forced them to work for him as prostitutes and used beatings and sexual violence to keep them in line.

Mobley's trial comes just as the state Supreme Court is starting to solicit input on a proposed rule that would give trial judges greater authority to restrict questioning of alleged victims by pro se defendants.

The process is expected to take at least a year because of competing constitutional rights as well as ethical concerns for defense attorneys who frequently are appointed as standby counsel to assist defendants acting pro se — Latin for "in one's own behalf."

The Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs proposed language modifying a criminal-court rule for pro se defendants after two recent King County cases.

In November 2010, a young woman threatened to jump off the roof of the King County Courthouse because she was terrified of facing Salvador Cruz, who was on trial for raping her when she was a child. Prosecutors dropped rape charges in connection with the young woman, although Cruz — who represented himself — ultimately was convicted and sentenced to 53 years in prison for raping three other women when they were children.

In June 2009 another rape defendant, Sankarandi Skanda, represented himself during trial. A Wallingford woman who was raped in her home at knife point endured two days of questioning by Skanda, who later hanged himself in his jail cell before the trial ended.

The Cruz and Skanda cases prompted lawmakers and the state's criminal-justice community — judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and victims' advocates — to begin discussing ways to ensure the constitutional rights of defendants aren't violated while also protecting witnesses, especially victims of sexual assault, from intimidating and humiliating questioning at the hands of their alleged perpetrators.

Case law established by the U.S. Supreme Court long has held that the Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to represent themselves and to question and cross-examine witnesses.

The amendment also guarantees defendants the right to confront their accusers.

The state Constitution goes one step further, giving defendants the right to confront their accusers face to face.

However, crime victims are to "be accorded due dignity and respect."

"I think judges do a good job of maintaining control so certain lines aren't crossed," said state Supreme Court Justice Charles Johnson, who chairs the court's rules committee. But the point of the proposed court rule for pro se defendants is to see "if we can more closely define where the line is so the interests in competition or in need of balancing are better defined."

It's a balancing act with high stakes: If the state Court of Appeals finds a defendant's rights were violated during trial, the case is sent back for retrial — which means victims would have to testify again.

Balancing the competing rights of victims and pro se defendants is where things can get tricky, said Spokane County Superior Court Judge Sam Cozza, chairman of the criminal-law committee for the state's Superior Court Judges' Association.

"We're kind of in an unknown area," Cozza said. "I make no bones about it — cases involving sexual assault are the most difficult cases to try, even under circumstances where you're trying them with experienced attorneys on both sides, because of the heightened emotions" inherent in such situations.

Criminal-court rules, which govern criminal proceedings, already give judges authority to control their courtrooms. Judges, for instance, can order pro se defendants to keep their distance from witnesses, or refrain from handing documents directly to witnesses.

Under the current rule, a judge "might require a general line of questioning to be submitted so you don't get clearly improper or harassing questions," Cozza said. But, he added, "I would say it's going to be difficult, denying a specific defendant from asking his own questions."

Kim Gordon, president-elect of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, agrees. She said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that "excessive involvement by standby counsel in front of a jury" is a violation of a pro se defendant's Sixth Amendment right, as is allowing standby counsel "to speak on any matter of importance."

"Hardly any aspect of a sexual-assault trial is more important to the search for truth than the cross-examination of the victim," Gordon said.

She questioned whether victims could testify via remote-video link, as has been done elsewhere, because of the right to confront one's accuser face to face guaranteed by the state Constitution.

Gordon also said she worries that asking a standby defense attorney to read questions prepared by a defendant would represent an ethical breach.

"We're required to exercise independent, professional judgment and to provide competent representation," Gordon said, noting neither obligation would be met if attorneys were to simply pose defendants' questions.

While Mary Ellen Stone understands the need to protect the rights of criminal defendants, the executive director of the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center said sex crimes are underreported as it is — and without a victim willing to come forward, "there is no case."

When victims first meet with one of the center's 10 legal advocates, "one of the very first questions they ask is, 'When am I going to have to see this person again?' " Stone said.

"It's one thing to know you're going to have to see him [in court] ... but it's a whole other thing if this person is asking you questions about what this person did to you and asks you to explain it in detail."

Stone's legal advocates will be in the courtroom when Mobley's alleged victims take the stand.

Two of the women — the now-18-year-old and a 21-year-old woman — reported Mobley to police, saying he confronted them in June at a SeaTac motel. He threatened their lives, choked and slapped them and stole $1,000 from them, charging papers say. They escaped when the older woman's boyfriend showed up, the papers say.

The 21-year-old told police that Mobley wanted to be known as the "biggest gangster in Seattle," the charges allege.

A third woman who allegedly worked as a prostitute for Mobley for eight months recently agreed to testify against him, prompting the filing of additional charges last month.

According to the 18-year-old's statement to police, Mobley knew she was 17 and working as a prostitute when he "attempted to recruit her to work for him" in April, charging papers say. The girl "scoffed at the idea," but Mobley "informed her she did not have a choice," assaulted her and took her money, the papers say.

"He would punch her, slap her and choke her" and "would continuously threaten to kill her," the charging papers say. "On three separate occasions, Mobley forced himself [on the girl] sexually," according to the papers.

The 21-year-old woman met Mobley after he responded to an online ad she placed for prostitution, charging papers say. "She admitted that she was initially impressed with his cars, possessions and the way he carried himself," and she estimated she gave Mobley $15,000 in the month she worked for him, the papers say.

After the confrontation at the SeaTac motel, Mobley is accused of luring the woman to a Renton shopping center, threatening her with a gun, blindfolding her and driving her to a Tukwila casino. An unknown male accomplice met Mobley at the casino, and both beat and sexually assaulted the woman, locking her in the trunk of the accomplice's car for 28 hours, the charging papers say.

Mobley was arrested June 23, but not before he intentionally rammed a sergeant's patrol car in an attempt to get away, charging papers say.

Because he's acting as his attorney, Mobley will be allowed to question his alleged victims during trial. But a motion he filed in September seeking to conduct pretrial interviews with two of the alleged victims was denied, though a defense investigator was allowed to interview the women, court records show.

In one motion filed Nov. 16, Mobley requested "color copies of all victim photos."

Sara Jean Green: 206-515-5654

or sgreen@seattletimes.com