Faretta v. California case brief summary
422 U.S. 806 (1975)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner initially represented himself against state charges of grand theft, but after the trial court determined that petitioner had not intelligently and knowingly waived his right to counsel, he appointed a public defender, ruling that petitioner had no constitutional right to conduct his own defense. Petitioner was convicted, the state appellate court affirmed the ruling and the conviction, and the state supreme court denied review.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The judgment was vacated and the case was remanded. The court held that the state could not constitutionally force a lawyer upon petitioner because he was literate, competent, and understanding, and voluntarily exercised his informed free will in waiving his right to the assistance of counsel.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
422 U.S. 806 (1975)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner challenged the judgment of
the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District,
affirming the lower court's ruling that he had no constitutional
right to represent himself at his criminal trial for grand theft, and
affirming his conviction.CASE FACTS
Petitioner initially represented himself against state charges of grand theft, but after the trial court determined that petitioner had not intelligently and knowingly waived his right to counsel, he appointed a public defender, ruling that petitioner had no constitutional right to conduct his own defense. Petitioner was convicted, the state appellate court affirmed the ruling and the conviction, and the state supreme court denied review.
DISCUSSION
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed and remanded, holding that the state could not constitutionally force a lawyer upon petitioner because he was literate, competent, and understanding, and voluntarily exercised his informed free will.
- The Court said that while the right to effective assistance of counsel of U.S. Constitutional Amendment VI was part of the due process of law guaranteed by U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV to defendants in state criminal courts, counsel thrust upon petitioner would not be an assistant, but a master, "representing" petitioner only through a legal fiction.
- The Court cited the long history of the right of self-representation, and the consensus of federal court authority and state constitutions in support.
CONCLUSION
The judgment was vacated and the case was remanded. The court held that the state could not constitutionally force a lawyer upon petitioner because he was literate, competent, and understanding, and voluntarily exercised his informed free will in waiving his right to the assistance of counsel.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment