No, a state cannot force a lawyer on someone who doesn't want one. The part of the Constitution about a fair trial (the Sixth Amendment) gives rights to the person on trial, not to a lawyer. A lawyer is supposed to be an 'assistant,' not a boss. Forcing a lawyer on someone is like imprisoning them with their own rights. As long as the defendant is warned about the dangers and still chooses to represent themself, that choice must be respected.

Yes, a state should be able to force someone to have a lawyer. The main point of the justice system is to be fair and find the truth. Most people who act as their own lawyer will do a terrible job and probably lose, even if they're innocent. A trial is a serious matter, not a stage for someone to make a point. Making sure the defendant has a competent lawyer protects the fairness of the whole system.

Yes, forcing a lawyer should be allowed. The Constitution never actually says you have a right to represent yourself; it only says you have a right to a lawyer. The court is basically making up this new right. The government's goal is to make sure justice is done fairly. Letting people who don't know the law represent themselves works against that goal and will cause chaos in courtrooms. The court is giving people a constitutional right to be a fool.

Yes, the Constitution gives a person the right to defend themselves. The state can't force a lawyer on someone who wants to handle their own defense, as long as they make that choice knowingly and voluntarily. The judge was wrong to make Faretta have a lawyer after initially allowing him to represent himself. However, a person representing themselves still has to follow the law and court rules. If they seriously disrupt the trial, the judge can make them have a lawyer. The Court found support for this right in the Constitution's design, historical practices, and previous court decisions.

The Court's decision that the Constitution guarantees a right to self-representation has no constitutional basis and will make the criminal justice system's problems worse. The historical evidence the Court uses is not convincing, and the decision ignores how criminal trials have changed, especially the development of the right to a lawyer. Letting people defend themselves will make courts more crowded and will lower the quality of justice. The procedural problems caused by this new right will be much bigger than any advantage defendants might gain.

The Constitution does not guarantee a right to self-representation. The fact that it specifically mentions the right to a lawyer but not self-representation suggests that the Founders weren't thinking about self-representation when they wrote the Constitution. The historical evidence the Court uses is unclear when you consider that defendants couldn't testify on their own behalf until the mid-1800s and how the right to a lawyer developed in the 1900s. Allowing self-representation goes against the government's interest in making sure justice is served and will create many procedural problems that outweigh any advantage for defendants.

The defendant "should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that `he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.'"

—the Supreme Court held that a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to represent himself in a criminal case.

The Supreme Court has recognized that "[i] mplicit in the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the defendant's right to self-representation."

In Faretta, the Supreme Court held that "a defendant in a state criminal trial has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so."

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to self-representation along with the right to the assistance of counsel.

—criminal defendant has right to waive counsel and represent himself if he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily elects to do so

However, the Supreme Court also explained that "the trial judge may terminate self-representation by a defendant who deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct. Of course, a State may—even over objection by the accused—appoint a `standby counsel'to aid the accused if and when the accused requests help, and to be available to represent the …

The right of self-representation is not a license... not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law

A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to waive legal representation so long as his waiver of counsel is voluntary and intelligent.

Once the defendant has validly waived the right to counsel, "although he may conduct his own defense ultimately to his own detriment, his choice must be honored out of `that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law.'"

Yes, forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant violates their constitutional rights. The Sixth Amendment grants the right to make a defense personally to the accused, not to counsel. The amendment speaks of the 'Assistance of Counsel,' implying that counsel is an aide to a willing defendant, not a master forced upon them. The structure of the amendment, which vests rights like notice, confrontation, and compulsory process in the accused, necessarily implies a right of self-representation. This interpretation is reinforced by centuries of English and American colonial legal history, which consistently recognized a defendant's right to personally manage their own defense. While a defendant may conduct their defense to their own detriment, their choice must be honored out of respect for individual autonomy, provided the waiver of counsel is made 'knowingly and intelligently.'

No, a state may constitutionally require a defendant to be represented by counsel. There is no constitutional basis for a right to self-representation; the Court's holding is a perversion of the Sixth Amendment, whose 'spirit and the logic' is to ensure the fullest possible defense, which in the vast majority of cases requires a lawyer. The goal of the justice system is to achieve justice, a goal that is ill-served when a conviction is obtained due to a defendant's ill-advised decision to waive counsel. Allowing self-representation undermines public confidence in the system and turns criminal justice into an instrument of self-destruction. The trial court should retain discretion to reject a waiver of counsel when the interests of justice so require.

No, the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a right to self-representation. The amendment makes no textual reference to self-representation, and the ability to waive a right does not create a constitutional right to its opposite. The Court's historical analysis is unpersuasive, particularly in light of modern procedural developments that have made the right to counsel essential for a fair trial. The state's interest in ensuring that justice is done outweighs a defendant's 'whimsical' desire to represent themselves. This newly created right will cause procedural confusion for trial courts without advancing any significant interest of the defendant, and it constitutionally bestows on a defendant the right to 'make a fool of himself.'

Yes. The Sixth Amendment implies a right of self-representation. A state cannot constitutionally force a lawyer upon a defendant who wishes to conduct his own defense, provided that the defendant makes the choice to waive counsel knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The trial judge's reversal of the initial decision to allow Faretta to represent himself deprived him of his constitutional right. The right of self-representation is not absolute and does not allow a defendant to ignore procedural and substantive law. The trial judge may terminate self-representation by a defendant who engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct. The Court found support for its decision in the structure of the Sixth Amendment, the historical evidence of self-representation in England and colonial America, and previous Supreme Court decisions recognizing the right.

The Court's holding that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to self-representation lacks a constitutional basis and will add to the problems of an already malfunctioning criminal justice system. The Court's reliance on historical evidence is unpersuasive, and its decision ignores the recent history of criminal procedure, particularly the development of the right to counsel. Allowing defendants to proceed pro se will lead to increased congestion in the courts and a decline in the quality of justice. The potential procedural problems caused by this new constitutional right will far outweigh any perceived tactical advantage for defendants.

The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a right to self-representation. The Amendment's silence on this issue, contrasted with its express guarantee of the right to counsel, suggests that the Framers did not have self-representation in mind when drafting the language. The historical evidence relied upon by the Court is inconclusive when examined against the backdrop of the disqualification of defendants from testifying due to their "interest" in the outcome until the mid-19th century and the Court's development of the right to counsel in the 20th century. Allowing self-representation undermines the State's interest in ensuring that justice is done and will create numerous procedural problems that outweigh any tactical advantage for defendants.

Faretta v. California

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot