Supreme Court Rules Against Schizophrenic Who Wanted to Represent Himself

KYJurisDoctor
Jun 19, 2008 12:37 PM CST

The ruling makes absolutely PERFECT sense!

NB
Jun 19, 2008 11:55 PM CST

The headline is unimportant.  It is the content of the decision that is appalling.  Never in my life did I expect to find myself applauding an opinion written by Scalia, but for the first time I am cheering the logic of his dissent. Now at a whiim a judge can strip anyone of his right to represent himself so long as he can find a corrupt psychologist willing to accuse that person of mental illness for the right price.  The Supreme Court should not have been considering just one undisputed schizophrenic but the rights of all of us, and it failed to do so.

NB
Jun 20, 2008 12:13 AM CST

It should not go unnoticed that in the majority opinion, the court states with approval ” The American Psychiatric Association (APA) tells us
(without dispute) in its amicus brief filed insupport of neither party that “[d]isorganized thinking, deficits in sustaining attention and concentration, impaired expressive
abilities, anxiety, and other common symptoms of severe mental illnesses can impair the defendant’s ability to play the significantly expanded role required for selfrepresentation
even if he can play the lesser role of represented defendant.” Brief for APA et al. as Amici Curiae 26.”  So the next people who can kiss their right to self-representation good bye are all the people who are not mentally ill, but have any of the above naturally occurring traits.  This case is not about schizophrenics;  it just used a schizophrenic to attack our civil rights.

NB
Jun 20, 2008 12:37 AM CST

Finally, the most important sentences in the Court’s opinion—and the ones which prove the Court is wrong—are:

We recognize that judges have sometimes expressed concern that Faretta,contrary to its intent, has led to trials that are unfair. See Martinez, supra, at 164
(BREYER, J., concurring) (noting practical concerns of trial judges). But recent empirical research suggests that such instances are not common. See, e.g., Hashimoto, Defending
the Right of Self-Representation: An Empirical Look at the Pro Se Felony Defendant, 85 N. C. L. Rev. 423, 427,447, 428 (2007) (noting that of the small number of defendants who chose to proceed pro se—“roughly 0.3% to 0.5%”
of the total, state felony defendants in particular “appear to have achieved higher felony acquittal rates than their represented counterparts in that they were less likely to have been convicted of felonies”)

It is unfortunate the courts and the state bars do not pay more attention to public defenders who lack the capacity or the will to provide an active and competent defense, or the courage to limit their caseload to a number that matches the resources provided.  If they did so, the issue of self-representation would rarely arise.  Most hand wringing over defendants representing themselves is about the frustration courts experience in facing a litigant who is not on the team.