McKaskle v. Wiggins
465 U.S. 168 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pro se defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation is not violated by the unsolicited participation of standby counsel, provided the defendant maintains actual control over the case presented to the jury and the jury's perception of the defendant as representing themself is not destroyed.
Facts:
- Carl Edwin Wiggins was set to be retried for robbery after his first conviction was overturned due to a defective indictment.
- Leading up to the second trial, Wiggins's position on legal representation was volatile; he first requested appointed counsel multiple times, receiving two attorneys, Benjamin Samples and R. Norvell Graham.
- At the start of pretrial proceedings, Wiggins announced he would proceed pro se and requested that his standby counsel not be allowed to interfere.
- Throughout the trial, Wiggins alternately objected to counsel's presence, consulted with them privately, and expressly permitted them to handle parts of the defense, such as questioning a witness and making an opening statement.
- Standby counsel actively participated, sometimes with Wiggins's consent and sometimes over his objection, by making motions, raising objections, and occasionally engaging in contentious exchanges with Wiggins.
- Following his conviction, Wiggins asserted that the unsolicited involvement of his standby counsel had unfairly interfered with his right to present his own defense.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl Edwin Wiggins was convicted of robbery in a Texas state trial court during a second trial where he represented himself with standby counsel.
- After exhausting his direct appeals and state habeas review, Wiggins filed a petition for a writ of federal habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court.
- The District Court denied the petition.
- Wiggins, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with Estelle, the prison director, as appellee.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment, finding that Wiggins's right of self-representation had been violated by overzealous standby counsel.
- McKaskle, the new director of the Texas Department of Corrections and petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the unsolicited participation of court-appointed standby counsel violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation, even when the defendant is allowed to control their own defense and the jury is aware they are proceeding pro se?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. The unsolicited participation of standby counsel does not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation if the defendant retains control of their own defense. The core of the Faretta right is respected if two conditions are met: (1) the pro se defendant is entitled to preserve actual control over the case they choose to present to the jury, and (2) participation by standby counsel does not destroy the jury’s perception that the defendant is representing themself. Here, Wiggins maintained actual control over all significant tactical decisions, and any disagreements with counsel were consistently resolved in his favor by the trial judge. Furthermore, Wiggins's own vacillation—soliciting counsel's help at times and rejecting it at others—undermines his claim of unwanted interference. Because Wiggins ultimately controlled the defense and the jury was never confused about his pro se status, his Sixth Amendment rights were not violated.
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes. The extensive and unsolicited participation of standby counsel violated Wiggins's right to self-representation. The majority's two-part test is unworkable and fails to protect the defendant's autonomy, which is the core value of the Faretta right. Standby counsel intervened over 50 times, often precipitating direct conflicts with Wiggins in front of the jury, which disrupted the trial and undermined Wiggins's control over his own defense. Such continuous and substantial intervention, despite Wiggins's objections, destroyed his perception that he was conducting his defense and made a mockery of his right to proceed pro se. The Fifth Circuit's standard that standby counsel is 'to be seen, but not heard' is more protective of the constitutional right at stake.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies, and arguably narrows, the scope of the right to self-representation established in Faretta v. California. It replaces a potentially rigid 'seen but not heard' standard for standby counsel with a more flexible, two-pronged functional test focusing on 'actual control' and 'jury perception.' This provides trial judges greater discretion in managing pro se defendants but also creates ambiguity, potentially permitting more intrusive participation by standby counsel than previously allowed. The ruling also establishes that a defendant’s own conduct, particularly inconsistency in accepting or rejecting counsel's help, can weaken a subsequent claim that their Faretta rights were violated.
Unlock the full brief for McKaskle v. Wiggins