Supreme Court to Consider Right to Self-Representation
In oral arguments tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider when a judge can refuse a defendant’s request to represent himself at trial.
Ahmad Edwards is seeking to overturn his conviction for attempted murder and other charges on the ground that he should have been allowed to represent himself, Gannett News Service reports. Edwards was convicted of charges that he tried to steal a pair of wingtip shoes and shot at an unarmed security guard who confronted him.
Edwards was initially judged incompetent and hospitalized, but he was later deemed competent to stand trial, the story recounts. However the trial judge refused Edwards’ request to oust his lawyer, saying the abilities a defendant needs to represent himself are greater than those required to understand the proceedings.
The state of Indiana supports the judge’s right to make that determination. It argues that a 1993 Supreme Court ruling on competency to stand trial, Godinez v. Moran, allows the states to set a higher bar—but not a lower one—for competency for self-representation.
The state contends Edwards demonstrated his inability to act as his own lawyer in this 2005 motion he filed: “Defendant moves the grounds of this court to dismiss this cause: if any notation of grand avoids a bill immunity proceeding at criminal information true-bill grounds. Defendant prays psalm 15.5 for innocent of court property to be dismissed wherefore, so shall it be done.”
The ABA supports the state of Indiana in an amicus brief (PDF) that urges the court to consider ABA Criminal Justice Standards on mental health and the functions of the trial judge. “The ABA submits that state courts should be permitted some latitude in determining the process used to test whether a defendant meets the competence standard to both stand trial and waive his or her right to counsel,” the brief says.
The case is Indiana v. Edwards.
