Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Right To Self-Representation

By Stan G. Kain
October 21, 2003

Accused sniper shooting suspect, John Allen Muhammad threw a curve to the Virginia court yesterday.  Mr. Muhammad's defense team, prosecutors nor the judge were not prepared for his demand of self-representation in facing the allegations.  Facing a possible death sentence, if convicted, Mr. Muhammad is playing a dangerous game.  Is the accused within his rights, demanding to act as his own attorney?  How should the court proceed?  Many questions will arise before the matter is resolved.

In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in such cases.  The case, referred to as Faretta v. California, reached the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds.  The high court recognized what the Sixth Amendment grants the accused personally has the right to make his defense.  The accused, not counsel, must be informed of nature and cause of the accusation.  The accused must be confronted with the witnesses against him and must be accorded the compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.

Continuing, the court determined that more fundamental than the right of self-representation is the right of the accused to present his own version of events in his own words.  Just as the Fifth Amendment grants the right to remain silent, the accused has the right to speak of his own free will.  Often, the most important witness in a criminal trial is the accused.  The choice to testify or not, rests with the Constitutional guarantee.  There are no stipulations in the U.S. Constitution which require the accused to face the accuser or cross-examine witnesses through legal counsel.

Probably the most publicized criminal case involving self-representation is that of Colin Ferguson.  Mr. Ferguson elected to represent himself, after being charged with killing six people and injuring seventeen more, during a shooting spree on a Long Island, NY subway.  Mr. Ferguson presented a rambling defense, accusing an unknown perpetrator, leading the court in a chaotic direction.  Mr. Ferguson was eventually found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

Self-representation offers a demanding challenge to prosecutors.  Often, they must educated the accused in matters of court proceedings, while thinking for both sides of the case.  Defendants lose objectivity and focus, being emotionally charged in their own defense.  Without objectivity, people make mistakes, often critical to their own defense.  In most instances, this should be their choice.

Law is not written in black and white.  Law is written in gray areas.  Such is the reason for high court reviews and interpretations of Constitutional law.  Often, a need exists for the court to protect the accused from self-inflicted injury.  Prior to granting the right to self-representation, most courts will insist on a psychiatric evaluation of the accused.  Courts want an assurance that the accused has the mental capacity to reason, understand the charges and provide a reasonable defense.  Generally, a court will also provide qualified legal counsel to consult with the accused.  Both measures are reasonable and protect our Constitutional guarantees.

Most legal analysts find the situation with John Allen Muhammad to be puzzling.  The court, almost without question or evaluation, allowed for self-representation.  This action is highly unusual, considering that the case is a life or death matter.  Mr. Muhammad has no legal training or experience, especially in a case involving the possibility of a death sentence.  The decision by the Virginia court may lead to many appeals, if Mr. Muhammad is convicted.

There is an old adage about, "any lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."  Mr. Muhammad may be an even greater fool, since he doesn't have the legal background for a case of this magnitude.  Should he have the right to self-representation?  I believe he should.  I believe the court has made an error in not subjecting Mr. Muhammad to routine psychiatric evaluations, but his right to defend himself is valid.  In a perfect world, our legal system would be simple, allowing citizens to represent themselves.  In reality, that is not true.  Mr. Muhammad has chosen to exercise his individual rightss and must life or die with the consequences.

If you have questions or comments, please email Stan.

Ⓒ Copyright Stan G. Kain 2003




No comments:

Post a Comment