Competent enough to represent yourself?
March 27, 2008
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Indiana v. Edwards (07-208) on whether states can require that defendants who are competent to stand trial must prove they are also fit to proceed pro se, that is, to represent themselves at trial.
While I was reading through the transcript, I was reminded of a criminal trial I observed during my judicial clerkship in which a defendant represented himself. Without legal training and little formal education, he struggled to introduce evidence; he put on an inadequate defense and continually violated courtroom decorum and procedure. While he was certainly competent to stand trial with an attorney, I’m not sure if he was truly competent enough to represent himself. (He lost, by the way).
In a criminal case, a defendant is competent to stand trial only when he or she can be “mentally present” at the proceeding. Basically, the defendant must understand the charges and the trial process, and be able to assist in his or her own defense.
By contrast, in order to waive counsel, the court must find only that the waiver is “knowing and intelligent.” The judge determines if the defendant has received the charging document, advises the defendant of possible penalties and of the right to counsel, and explains the implications of waiver.
Should there be a separate determination that a defendant is competent to proceed pro se? If so, what should the test be? Do you think it should be the ability to “communicate coherently,” as Indiana’s solicitor general, Thomas M. Fisher, argued?
CHRISTINA DORAN, Assistant Legal Editor
Sphere: Related ContentComments
One Response to “Competent enough to represent yourself?”
Got something to say?
-
Business
Business postsLaw
Law posts- Garrett closer to getting a judge
- Can’t do the canned food drive
- Is Harrell the new Cathell?
- Uphill climb for gas-leak plaintiffs
- This week in Maryland Lawyer
- ‘Generally happy’ with billable training
- Law blog round-up
- Possible Enzyte trouble for Venable?
- Eiswert, Sherbin seek Garrett bench seat
- Blogger arrested for leaking songs
Recent Posts
- Bowie Baysox made the playoffs - if anyone noticed
- Garrett closer to getting a judge
- Wound up about design
- Loyola gets a nod for its tech offerings
Recent Comments
- Russell D. McGeorge: Don’t they still feel pressured to meet what they know to be the recent standard? If I...
- BeagleMom: I truly think it depends on each individuals situation and financial stability. With the economy...
- Kathleen Cook: Jeff is right. Not a proud moment. This one is doubly not proud. As the $1.5 mill wife, I was not an...
- Ginger Wassum: I was another unfortunate person who was traveling from another state on a quiet Sunday morning to...
- tfr: Yes. I have seen a deer in the City. Foxes too.
On Commenting
We ask that our readers follow a few guidelines, noted below.Please do not post any personal attacks, profanity, spam or other advertisements — they will be removed. Also, please post using only one name or pseudonym, as this consistency helps establish a sense of community. We will delete posts if they are signed with different names but originate from the same IP or email address. And if you’re going to comment using a proper name, please make it your own. Deliberate misrepresentations will be removed.
I represented an elderly veteran with severe mental and physical issues in a motion for a new trial in a case where the presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Criminal court granted the defendant’s request to proceed pro se. The trial transcript was filled with the same issues that you noted plus the fact that he was facing a third strike that could have put him away for life. Needless to say he lost the trial and I lost the motion, but the judge made my argument for me (I hope he won on appeal) when in response to the defendant’s comment, that “Your Honor, I’m not, I’m not capable of representing myself,” the judge said “I have said that, and urged you not to represent yourself.”
Not sure what the answer is, only that a person who chooses to represent himself has a fool for a client.