Supreme Court Case Analysis
American Court
Running head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE PAPER ABOUT THE AMERICAN COURT SYSTEM
Article Critique Paper about the American Court System
Lonnie Norris
Subject:
Task:
Date:
Introduction
The article ‘Competency to stand trial and to waive the Sixth Amendment Right to Self-Representation’ explores the mechanisms through defendants in the American court can claim self representation. Ordinarily, in the American Court system any criminal suspect has the right to counsel, which is provided for under the Sixth Amendment Right. In order to prove this, the article use the Edward v. State case (866 N.E. 2d 252/Ind.2007) decided by the Indiana Supreme Court (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). The case fundamentally sparks interest on the validity of an accused to appeal for self representation based on the prevailing circumstances.
Analysis
The Edward v. State case leads to the development of a legal tussle to justify self representation as part of the accused’s constitutional rights. After undergoing evaluation by two psychiatrists, Ahmad Edwards got diagnosed with schizophrenia and as a result a declaration was taken …show more content…
that he is incompetent to stand for trial (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). This decision borrows from conditions provided under Fourteenth Amendment, which requires the accused to be perfect mental state in order to seek for self representation. Two years later, Edwards is declared competent after undergoing a series of evaluation and treatment at the Logansport State Hospital; however, this decision was cancelled after further examinations (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). Subsequent tests satisfy Ahmad Edwards competent, which encourages Edwards to seek self-representation but he is denied this privilege on the assumption that he is going to plead for insanity defense (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). Ordinarily, the decision to counsel under the Sixth Amendment justifies the defendant’s right for self representation as opposed to the accused.
However, this is still subject to the fulfillment of certain assumption by the defendant. The decision of a defendant to choose self representation implies that he needs to be ready to cope with the bad and good, and as such if the legal system decides to respect the defendant’s decision to forgo his right for counsel then he needs to acknowledge the disadvantages the choice may bring (Steve & Higgins, 2010). In Edward v. State case, the fulfillment of these decisions is entirely complicated by the initial diagnosis of mental instability. As a result, one can pose the question: would Edward also be required to recognize the probability of mental unfitness as one of the disadvantages? Later on, Edwards is denied his Sixth Amendment Right to self representation leading to his 30 year imprisonment despite numerous attempts at appealing for his Sixth Amendment Right (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). Hence, in the event Edward had been given the right to self representation, his rights would have been clearly violated since the state ought to protect him too. “There is a strong indication that his self-representation may substantially and persistently obstruct the proper and expeditious conduct of a fair trial” (Steve & Higgins, 2010).
Consequently, this calls for the institution of a fair mechanism that would competently oversee the attainment of a fair trial. According to Steve and Higgins (2010) harmonizing the right of the accused for self representation with the need for expeditious and fair proceedings Amicus Curiae needs to be appointed to provide assistance to the Chamber in the determination of critical matters associated with self representation. Pursuant to this, the state’s argument that in order to achieve fundamental fairness of the court the defendant’s right to self representation should be limited (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). Hence, it is the state’s Supreme Court’s responsibility to competently safeguard the interests of the state, which it represents in all legal proceedings. The decision of the Court was based on the fact that: the Sixth Amendment strictly addresses trial right that excludes appeals, the risk of disloyalty coming from a state-appointed attorney does to justify that self representation becomes expressed as a component of a fair appellate proceeding, and the states ought to represent the government’s interest in the fair administration of an appellate process, which outweighs any invasion to the appellant’s interest with regard to self representation (Dimitrakopoulos, 2007).
The Court makes reference to the Faretta v. California case (1975) in which the Supreme Court assets that the right to self representation remains implicit by virtue of the fact that it is given to the accused under assistance of the council (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). This upholds the fact that an appellate process ought to overlook any attempts of the accused to change the legal process to their advantage, while seeking refuge on the assumption that their mental states are perfect as provided by the Fourteenth amendment. These views are further reaffirmed by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Godinez v. Moran (1993) case in which it is decided that competence is required to waive the defendant’s right to counsel but this does not imply seeking for self representation (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). Moreover, the decision to deny Edward his right to self representation was further driven by the nature of crime he had committed. This is expressed in the Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California (2000) case, the Court held the decision that according to the Due Process of the Federal constitution and the Sixth Amendment, the right to self representation is denied especially from direct appeals resulting from a criminal conviction (Dimitrakopoulos, 2007)
Conclusion
In essence, it is important to recognize the fundamental role of the court in ensuring that a fair trial is achieved in the prosecution of criminal cases.
The outcome of the Edward v. State case recognizes the risks involved in giving sufficient freedom to the defendant due to the probability that this may be applied to their advantage during trial. Hence, by citing mental instability through a series of tests, and the follow up decision to deny Edward self representation the state falls within its legal mandate to exercise such discretion. Moreover, the state plays an overarching role in protecting the national interests given the jurisdiction Court judges have been given with regard to the prosecution of criminal cases similar to Edward v.
State.
Personal Opinion
In as much as Edward was denied self representation, the court ought to have considered given chance for a standby counsel in the case Edward’s behavior during the trial is labeled as misconduct. The standby counsel would have adequately stepped in to represent following his possible dismissal from the chambers. For instance, consider a scenario in which Edward was granted self representation subject to approval of his mental stability and subsequent recognition of the positive and negative aspects of his decision. Moreover, the court may have overlooked the backing given to self representation under the Fourteenth Amendment rights.
References
Benitez, C & Chamberlain, J. (2008). Competency to Stand Trial and to Waive the Sixth
Amendment Right to Self-Representation: Journal of the American Academy Psychiatry Law, 36(2), 261-263. Retrieved on 8 December 2010 from
Dimitrakopoulos, I. (2007). Individual Rights and Liberties under the U.S Constitution: the Case
Law of the U.S Supreme Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Steven, K & Higgins, G. (2010). The Right of Self-Representation – The Lawyers in the Eye of
The Storm: International Criminal Law Bureau, Retrieved on 8 December 2010 from
Running head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE PAPER ABOUT THE AMERICAN COURT SYSTEM
Article Critique Paper about the American Court System
Lonnie Norris
Subject:
Task:
Date:
Introduction
The article ‘Competency to stand trial and to waive the Sixth Amendment Right to Self-Representation’ explores the mechanisms through defendants in the American court can claim self representation. Ordinarily, in the American Court system any criminal suspect has the right to counsel, which is provided for under the Sixth Amendment Right. In order to prove this, the article use the Edward v. State case (866 N.E. 2d 252/Ind.2007) decided by the Indiana Supreme Court (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). The case fundamentally sparks interest on the validity of an accused to appeal for self representation based on the prevailing circumstances.
Analysis
The Edward v. State case leads to the development of a legal tussle to justify self representation as part of the accused’s constitutional rights. After undergoing evaluation by two psychiatrists, Ahmad Edwards got diagnosed with schizophrenia and as a result a declaration was taken …show more content…
that he is incompetent to stand for trial (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). This decision borrows from conditions provided under Fourteenth Amendment, which requires the accused to be perfect mental state in order to seek for self representation. Two years later, Edwards is declared competent after undergoing a series of evaluation and treatment at the Logansport State Hospital; however, this decision was cancelled after further examinations (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). Subsequent tests satisfy Ahmad Edwards competent, which encourages Edwards to seek self-representation but he is denied this privilege on the assumption that he is going to plead for insanity defense (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). Ordinarily, the decision to counsel under the Sixth Amendment justifies the defendant’s right for self representation as opposed to the accused.
However, this is still subject to the fulfillment of certain assumption by the defendant. The decision of a defendant to choose self representation implies that he needs to be ready to cope with the bad and good, and as such if the legal system decides to respect the defendant’s decision to forgo his right for counsel then he needs to acknowledge the disadvantages the choice may bring (Steve & Higgins, 2010). In Edward v. State case, the fulfillment of these decisions is entirely complicated by the initial diagnosis of mental instability. As a result, one can pose the question: would Edward also be required to recognize the probability of mental unfitness as one of the disadvantages? Later on, Edwards is denied his Sixth Amendment Right to self representation leading to his 30 year imprisonment despite numerous attempts at appealing for his Sixth Amendment Right (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). Hence, in the event Edward had been given the right to self representation, his rights would have been clearly violated since the state ought to protect him too. “There is a strong indication that his self-representation may substantially and persistently obstruct the proper and expeditious conduct of a fair trial” (Steve & Higgins, 2010).
Consequently, this calls for the institution of a fair mechanism that would competently oversee the attainment of a fair trial. According to Steve and Higgins (2010) harmonizing the right of the accused for self representation with the need for expeditious and fair proceedings Amicus Curiae needs to be appointed to provide assistance to the Chamber in the determination of critical matters associated with self representation. Pursuant to this, the state’s argument that in order to achieve fundamental fairness of the court the defendant’s right to self representation should be limited (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). Hence, it is the state’s Supreme Court’s responsibility to competently safeguard the interests of the state, which it represents in all legal proceedings. The decision of the Court was based on the fact that: the Sixth Amendment strictly addresses trial right that excludes appeals, the risk of disloyalty coming from a state-appointed attorney does to justify that self representation becomes expressed as a component of a fair appellate proceeding, and the states ought to represent the government’s interest in the fair administration of an appellate process, which outweighs any invasion to the appellant’s interest with regard to self representation (Dimitrakopoulos, 2007).
The Court makes reference to the Faretta v. California case (1975) in which the Supreme Court assets that the right to self representation remains implicit by virtue of the fact that it is given to the accused under assistance of the council (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). This upholds the fact that an appellate process ought to overlook any attempts of the accused to change the legal process to their advantage, while seeking refuge on the assumption that their mental states are perfect as provided by the Fourteenth amendment. These views are further reaffirmed by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Godinez v. Moran (1993) case in which it is decided that competence is required to waive the defendant’s right to counsel but this does not imply seeking for self representation (Benitez & Chamberlain, 2008). Moreover, the decision to deny Edward his right to self representation was further driven by the nature of crime he had committed. This is expressed in the Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California (2000) case, the Court held the decision that according to the Due Process of the Federal constitution and the Sixth Amendment, the right to self representation is denied especially from direct appeals resulting from a criminal conviction (Dimitrakopoulos, 2007)
Conclusion
In essence, it is important to recognize the fundamental role of the court in ensuring that a fair trial is achieved in the prosecution of criminal cases.
The outcome of the Edward v. State case recognizes the risks involved in giving sufficient freedom to the defendant due to the probability that this may be applied to their advantage during trial. Hence, by citing mental instability through a series of tests, and the follow up decision to deny Edward self representation the state falls within its legal mandate to exercise such discretion. Moreover, the state plays an overarching role in protecting the national interests given the jurisdiction Court judges have been given with regard to the prosecution of criminal cases similar to Edward v.
State.
Personal Opinion
In as much as Edward was denied self representation, the court ought to have considered given chance for a standby counsel in the case Edward’s behavior during the trial is labeled as misconduct. The standby counsel would have adequately stepped in to represent following his possible dismissal from the chambers. For instance, consider a scenario in which Edward was granted self representation subject to approval of his mental stability and subsequent recognition of the positive and negative aspects of his decision. Moreover, the court may have overlooked the backing given to self representation under the Fourteenth Amendment rights.
References
Benitez, C & Chamberlain, J. (2008). Competency to Stand Trial and to Waive the Sixth
Amendment Right to Self-Representation: Journal of the American Academy Psychiatry Law, 36(2), 261-263. Retrieved on 8 December 2010 from
Dimitrakopoulos, I. (2007). Individual Rights and Liberties under the U.S Constitution: the Case
Law of the U.S Supreme Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Steven, K & Higgins, G. (2010). The Right of Self-Representation – The Lawyers in the Eye of
The Storm: International Criminal Law Bureau, Retrieved on 8 December 2010 from