Comments on: A Fool and His Lawyer: Can You Be Competent to Stand Trial But Unfit to Represent Yourself?

By: Court Rules that Mentally Disturbed Defendants Can Be Competent to Stand Trial But Incompetent to Represent Themselves « JONATHAN TURLEY

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:49:35 +0000

[...] At issue was the demand for self-representation made by Ahmad Edwards, a schizophrenic, who was found sane under the low standards applied in most states today. However, he was found to be incompetent in self-representation. For a prior column on the case, click here. [...]

By: Bob, Esq.

Bob, Esq. — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:33:44 +0000

“Can You Be Competent to Stand Trial But Unfit to Represent Yourself?”

This seems to be somewhat of a dilemma.

On one horn you have the saying (paraphrasing) “A shoe maker’s children are always in need of new shoes; a mechanic’s family’s car is always broken; and a doctor’s children are always in need of a band-aid.”

On the other horn you have those attorneys who focus on transactional, motion and appellate work and would even hire outside counsel to handle a traverse hearing for them.

(eh hem)

Attorney/Defendant: “Your honor, I object on the grounds that the prosecution is resorting to acts of epic naughty.”

Regards,

Bob

By: Vincent Caminiti

Vincent Caminiti — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:52:19 +0000

The Long Island case involving Colin Ferguson mentioned above, was a particularly disturbing spectacle. Ferguson showed every indication that he was also unfit to stand trial although Attorneys William Kunstler and Ron Kuby were unable to sway Judge Belfi, the former Manhattan ADA and Nassau County ADA that presided over the case.

The ground swell though, for a head-on-a-stick, after Ferguson’s massacre on the railroad was very disturbing as well and seems to have influenced the decision to allow the In Pro Per Defense. It never went well.

As many well remember, Carolyn McCarthy (the widow of one of Ferguson’s victims, and the mother of another victim that survived) became an activist for gun control and in 1997 began her new career in the U.S. Congress as Representative of NY’s 4th District, where she still remains.

By: Susan

Susan — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:59:58 +0000

My question on the self-representation issue would be how the bar is raised, meaning what specific requirements need to be put in place. Also, how would individuals who desire to represent themselves be tested to make sure they are in fact competent to do so? Would it be done through a written test or oral one? It’s a very tough call to make, given that a person’s life and liberty are at stake in criminal felony cases. There are no easy answers on this topic.

By: JR

JR — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:18:30 +0000

I would assume that Breyer is a pretty safe vote for allowing self-representation, but other than him I couldn’t begin to guess. This sounds like the sort of case he’d want to author an opinion on, too, be it majority or dissent. I would think he’d consider self-representation to be the most basic form of active liberty.

By: deeply worried

deeply worried — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:46:39 +0000

Generally worst possible outcomes are what we see, so you are probably correct.

By: jonathanturley

jonathanturley — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:15:23 +0000

Thanks DW. I expect that Alito and Roberts would be inclined to raise the standard for self-representation. I am not even sure of some of the members on the left of the Court. We could see the worst outcome, in my view, of raising the bar for self-representation while keeping the low bar on competence to be tried.

By: deeply worried

deeply worried — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:51:38 +0000

Exceedingly good presentation. Even a nincompoop like me after reading it has a grasp of the basic issues. You do a public service in these articles.

How the Supreme Court will handle this: we see a dilemma for some of them looming here and it will be interesting to see not only how the votes come down but what they write…