It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Washington - Criminal defendants do not have a constitutional right to represent themselves in court when a judge determines their mental capabilities aren't up to the task of producing the appearance of a fair trial.
In a major 7-to-2 decision announced on Thursday, the US Supreme Court carved out an exception to the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the assistance of counsel – or to choose to have no counsel at all.
The high court ruled against a man diagnosed with mental illness who was found by a judge to be competent to stand trial on an attempted murder charge but deemed not competent enough to fire his court-appointed lawyer and represent himself at the trial.
The judge found that the defendant lacked certain "abilities" – such as legal expertise and communications skills – to mount an effective defense.
The judge found that the defendant lacked certain "abilities" – such as legal expertise and communications skills – to mount an effective defense.
Originally posted by jackinthebox
Just another example of how the Constiution means nothing to the government.
Really? Care to show me where in the Constitution it guarantees a defendant the right to represent themselves? I see where it grants them the right of legal counsel and legal representation, but I fail to see the words "the right to act as one's own legal counsel shall not be infringed upon" anywhere in the document.
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Even if the defendant exercises his right to his detriment, the Constitution ordinarily guarantees him the opportunity to do so. A defendant who represents himself cannot thereafter complain that the quality of his defense denied him effective assistance of counsel. Id. at 834-35 n.46. Related to the right of self-representation is the right to testify in one's own defense. Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987)
Really? Care to show me where in the Constitution it guarantees a defendant the right to represent themselves?
www.usconstitution.net...
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Originally posted by jackinthebox
Since when does one need the right to defend themselves as if it were a privilege?
In England, defendants often had neither.
The right to defend yourself is simply the right to have your side of the case heard with full knowledge of the charges and evidence being used against you. The right to legal representation is the right to appoint someone to assist you in your defense.
Your question makes no sense as it seems to indicate you don't understand the difference between rights and privileges.