A Courtroom of One's Own

Thursday, 03.27.08

A Courtroom of One's Own

Photo by Flickr user RL Santiago CP

Of clerks and perks

July/August 2006

Stuart Taylor Jr. and Benjamin Wittes argue that Supreme Court justices are overly dependent on clerks and should be weaned off them.

Remote control

September 2005

Stuart Taylor Jr. thinks the Supreme Court has become too stuffy and detached from the concerns of the real world, let alone the down-and-dirty legal system over which they rule.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Indiana v. Edwards, a case that could limit the right of mentally-ill criminal defendants to represent themselves at trial.

A madman had his day in court yesterday. Ahmad Edwards, a schizophrenic who tried to kill a security guard in 1999, appealed his conviction on grounds that the judge hadn't let him act as his own lawyer. The Indiana court that eventually convicted him appointed a public defender after Edwards filed nonsense motions and wrote a letter addressing the judge as "old man." (Edwards has counsel representing him on appeal.) Is it possible, the Supreme Court asked yesterday, to be too crazy to represent yourself in your own trial, but sane enough to stand trial to begin with?

The argument, unlikely to be decided for months, pits two profound interests against each other: the citizen's Sixth Amendment right to choose his own defense, and the state's demand for a fair and orderly justice system. Antonin Scalia, the only member of the Court who seemed sympathetic to Edwards, pointed out that we allow defendants to mount no defense whatsoever, so surely they have the lesser right to mount a bad defense. Edwards's lawyer said his client wasn't totally incompetent. "There are all kinds of nuts who could get 90 percent on the bar exam," retorted Anthony Kennedy, in the course of questioning whether this particular nut had a right to defend himself, even if he had a basic understanding of criminal procedure. (He didn't, it seems: Edwards's motions invoked scripture and failed even to parse grammatically.) Stephen Breyer pointed out that letting crazy people defend themselves will cause more of them -- some innocent, and capable of being gotten off the hook by a competent lawyer -- to be thrown in prison.

It was in a sense a moment of Burkean conservatism, upheld by the liberal wing of a now conservative-leaning court. "Am I seriously to felicitate a madman," Burke famously asked, "who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty?" The justices' questions made it sound unlikely that madmen will have their sunny days in court much longer, and will instead have to be content with the wholesome strait-jacket of a public defender. — Graeme Wood

Ill advised

That self-representation is a right "does not mean that excercising that right is a good idea," argues Jay D. Hall in The Legality.

Stand up for yourself

Pro se defenses preserve the essential right to fairness of the accused, writes Erica Hashimoto, a law professor cited in the case; data show they are also fairly successful.

A choice, not a necessity

Gideon, a public defender and blogger, argues against the idea that people need pro se rights to circumvent bad, court-appointed lawyers.

Conflicting standards

Jonathan Turley believes that the problem is not with allowing mentally-ill defendants to speak for themselves, but with deeming them fit to stand trial in the first place.

Courtroom blow-by-blow

Writing on the SCOTUS blog Lyle Denniston, analyzes the Supreme Court proceedings and finds it unlikely that the court will rule in favor of a separate standard for self-representation.

Filed Under: court, crime, law, lawyers, mental illness, rights, Supreme Court

(3)

Hello,

I have just one suggestion regarding the photographs that preface most of the articles here. Could a small comment be added? In the above article, the two men pictured could have nothing at all to do with Indiana v. Edwards, for all we know. Is one of the men pictured Mr. Edwards? Or are they both attorneys arguing the case?

Posted by Jeremy | March 27, 2008 4:07 PM

Thank you for your comment.

The photo has been changed. We wish to make clear that neither man portrayed in the original photo was involved in Indiana v. Edwards, either as counsel or as gun-wielding psycho-killer.

We regret any misimpression the photo may have caused.

Posted by Graeme Wood | March 28, 2008 12:54 AM

Hello,

Just thought you should know, the quote from the Legality has a typo, "excercising" should be "exercising".

Posted by Jeff Richards | March 28, 2008 2:02 PM

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.

-->