POLS 4720 Lecture Notes - Lecture 13: Earl Warren, Potter Stewart, Fifth Amendment To The United States Constitution
5 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
John Knowitall is on trial for murder. He wishes to represent himself. The trial judge asks him
about the voire dire procedures and hearsay rules, but John is not familiar with them. Should
John be allowed to represent himself? What if John has obvious signs of mental disability?
-This is similar to the case, Faretta v California. Faretta was charged with grand theft and
he requested to represent himself. When he was later questioned about voire dire
procedures, the judge reversed his initial agreement and appointed counsel for Faretta
(Oyez, 1974). However, Supreme Court held that if a defendant knowingly and
intelligently wants to defend himself, the state criminal trial must allow him that right. In
the case for Faretta, not knowing the procedures on voire dire was irrelevant to whether
he voluntarily waived his right to counsel. John Potter Stewart, who wrote the majority,
stated that the Constitution cannot force an attorney onto a person and that “forcing an
attorney on an unwilling defendant is contrary to his basic right to defend himself if he
truly wants to” (Oyez, 1974). Therefore, John Knowitall would be allowed to represent
himself.
-If John has obvious signs of mental disability, under the decision of Indiana v Edwards,
the Court held that there was nothing in the Sixth Amendment or the Court’s precedents
that denied the state the right to force counsel on a defendant who is not mentally
competent to represent himself (Oyez, 2008). Therefore, if John has obvious signs of
mental disability, the Constitution permits States to insist upon representation by counsel
for those competent enough to stand trial. Because Faretta only affirmed the rights to self
representation when the individual voluntarily an intelligently elects to do so, the
individual’s mental competency is called into question.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
The trial judge asks him about the voire dire procedures and hearsay rules, but john is not familiar with them. This is similar to the case, faretta v california. Faretta was charged with grand theft and he requested to represent himself. When he was later questioned about voire dire procedures, the judge reversed his initial agreement and appointed counsel for faretta (oyez, 1974). However, supreme court held that if a defendant knowingly and intelligently wants to defend himself, the state criminal trial must allow him that right. In the case for faretta, not knowing the procedures on voire dire was irrelevant to whether he voluntarily waived his right to counsel. Therefore, john knowitall would be allowed to represent himself. Therefore, if john has obvious signs of mental disability, the constitution permits states to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial.
