JUDGE TRYING TO FORCE COUNSEL IM PRO SE TRIAL
The United States Supreme Court has further recognized the importance of the assistance of counsel through its subsequent decisions identifying the ability to assist counsel as a necessary component of competence to stand trial 1, 2 and ruling that “lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries,” obligating states to provide attorneys for indigent defendants. Implications of the decision for forensic clinicians and limitations of the decision are discussed.Īmong guarantees for the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury in the district of the offense, notice of charges, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory processes for obtaining witnesses in one's favor, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the assistance of counsel in making his defense. The ruling is considered in light of available research involving pro se defendants and whether this ruling is consistent with professional guidelines related to forensic psychiatric practice. In this analysis of the Court's decision, the authors describe the facts of this case, the legal precedents framing the issues facing the Court, and the Court's rationale for its opinion. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the Constitution allows states to employ a higher competency standard for pro se defendants. Edwards, the United States Supreme Court considered whether states may demand a higher standard of competence for criminal defendants seeking to represent themselves at trial than that necessary for standing trial with attorney representation.
The right to represent oneself at trial is well-established, but not absolute.
0 kommentar(er)
