Comments on: No Fool I: High School Dropout Represents Himself and Beats Murder Charge

By: Decent Citizen

Decent Citizen — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:00:57 +0000

This is the problem with american citizens today.. They’re idiots. You KNOW he did it? because the family thought he did it? reallly? he’s living with his mother last I heard, after the case. The sister might have an axe to grind, if her brother is such a loser probably stole from her, fought with her etc. bloody clothes dna? WHERE? confession? WHERE? “oh it’s all in the first transcript” yet you don’t provide an actual link to it. You really think the prosecutors are too inept to enter that into evidence? The victim was a druggie, who knows how many other druggies come through places like that. The state didnt’ prove they knew what happened, and you all sound like idiots pretending you knew what happened. Thank goodness for a good and decent jury.

By: Set in Style — Blog Archive » The Attorney Who Represents Himself . . . .

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:58:32 +0000

[...] Ditto for the attorney who serves as his own editor. [...]

By: Mad mom

Mad mom — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:23:54 +0000

The trancript of the earlier trail had all the evidence and the insanity plea from Stewart, in which the second juors did not hear.Along with the original testimony from his sister.All the postponments then finally the right to a speedy trail in which the prosecutor claims he didnt have enough time to put together the case.They had his dna on the bloody clothes his sister gave the police and her testimony.Harold used the system to beat the system.Dont let this man put a law suit on anyone.He has already gotten away with murder,it is in the transcripts.You can find them and read for yourself at Judical/pg/county.He atmitted to the murder!!!!!!!

By: JOANIE

JOANIE — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:10:09 +0000

THATS ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT THE MURDER,HIGH SCHOOL DROP OUT.LETS DO SOME MORE RESEARCH ON THE WHOLE FAMILY AND HISTORY.I agree.He convinced hisself first,which then allowed him to convince the jurors.Scam artist.GUILTY IN THE EYES OF THE LORD.IF YOU DONT BELIEVE RESEARCH THE LIFE,STORY!!!

By: BOBBY

BOBBY — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:03:03 +0000

TRY TO TELL A LITTLE MORE ABOUT OUR HERO,HIS DRUG ADDITIONS,CRIMINAL RECORD,CHILDREN HE NEVER SUPPORTED.DIG THE DIRT UP ON THE REST OF THE FAMILY TO.THERE IS PLENTY OF IT.CANT HIDE THE TRUTH FROM GOD.

By: WILLIAM

WILLIAM — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:57:47 +0000

I know he did committ the crime.I am friends of the family and they know it to.They left out the part about the guy that was killed was a junkie and so was Mr.Stewart.First prosecutor did not work hard enough because the case was there and they let him get away with murder.Maybe because the guy was a junkie his life wasnt worth as much.Most addicts are convincing/manipulting.Dont think you seen the last of Mr.Stwart, his habits reveal themselves from his past.So no I give him no glory.A coward, not to be man enough to stand up and be accountable for his actions.Must of been some inside payoffs,check it out and I am sure it wont be hard to trail.Every Dog has his day.Could happen toone of their family members then how would they feel.HIPOCRITTS!

By: Supreme Court Takes Up Self-Representation « JONATHAN TURLEY

Supreme Court Takes Up Self-Representation « JONATHAN TURLEY — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 04:06:16 +0000

[...] The courts have routinely had to deal with unhinged individuals who insisted on arguing their own cases. The most notable was was Colin Ferguson who was convicted in 1995 of killing six passengers on the Long Island Railroad. Ferguson turned the court proceedings into bizarre diatribes and delusions. Yet, recently a defendant viewed as unhinged actually won his own case. Click here [...]

By: Susan

Susan — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:15:23 +0000

I’m aware of the difficulties faced by anyone who decides to represent himself, and that self-representation isn’t for everyone. In fact, many may not have the ability to do this at all. That being said, why should any defendant, who knows he is innocent of the charges against him, be forced to plead guilty simply because he got stuck with an attorney who made it clear he would NOT fight hard for his client at trial? That seems to have been what happened in Mr. Stewart’s case, so he honestly felt he had no choice BUT to represent himself.

By: jonathanturley

jonathanturley — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:58:16 +0000

Thanks, Sarah. Of course, there have been many disasters such as Colin Fergusan’s self-representation in the Long Island train massacre. It is a difficult path for both defendants and courts to take. Many of Stewart’s objections were criticized as incomprehensible or irrelevant. However, he was able to point out some evidentiary gaps — particularly with regard to the time of the attack. He was also assisted by the fact that his sister did not give as damaging testimony in the second trial as she did the first trial.

By: Susan

Susan — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:12:40 +0000

JT, I can’t thank you enough for publishing this story! While it is always preferable that every criminal defendant have an effective and (even better) zealous defense attorney try their case, it is also a known fact that those without the funds to hire such zealous counsel often get barely-adequate representation. And I also question the old saying that “anyone who represents himself has a fool for a client.” While this is no doubt true in most cases, it doesn’t necessarily apply to ALL people. It obviously didn’t apply to this high school dropout client either.

This is also why I strongly believe that EVERY citizen should make it a priority to learn as much about the law in general and criminal law in particular. This is one more real-life illustration that being falsely or mistakenly accused of murder or other heinous crime CAN happen to anyone. Mr. Stewart was very lucky that he was allowed to represent himself, as is his constitutional right, instead of having an attorney forced on him who may not be looking out for his client’s best interests. Some are denied that right, if the defendant appears to “know too much” about the law and how it works.