Link to Bricker’s Staff Report.
A couple of questions. Could a client who self-represents and loses have any basis for an appeal based on inadequate representation? Secondly is self-representing still a bad idea if the accused is a criminal lawyer himself? Is this common among lawyers who face criminal charges and if not why not? Surely no one is fitter to represent them if they’re a skilled criminal lawyer and certainly nobody is more intimate with the client.
I would think that by representing yourself you’ve taken a very big leap towards waiving your 5th Amendment protections. Normally a defendant represented by his/her attorney doesn’t have to do anything but sit in the courtroom; the prosecutor cannot call the defendant to the stand so it’s entirely up to the state to prove their case. Once you’ve decided to be your own attorney, aren’t all bets off?
Generally, yes.
Not particularly. By the time you’ve been on the inside you know it tends to end badly for those who represent themselves in high stakes cases.
Enjoy,
Steven
It has been done successfully, once recently by a very talented lawyer.
In general, a bad idea.
There is the old saying - A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. There is a reason that saying exists.
Even if the attorney in question is nationally recognized as one of the most skillful in the US, there’s this emotional component to it. All those persuasive arguments that a lawyer might make? Jurors have to *believe *them or the words are meaningless. And for a trial where the lawyer is the defendant, the jury is going to enter the room assuming the defendant’s a liar, that he’s going to say anything he can to get acquitted. And thus even if the lawyer/defendant says the same words with the same delivery as what the best attorney in the world would say, they don’t have the same impact.
The trouble with representing yourself is that you will lack the necessary detachment with which to view what is going on. A good attorney isn’t just a lap dog, carrying out the orders of the client. A good attorney is someone who understands all the pros and cons to the client’s situation, and can offer multiple options for dealing with it, along with well-considered advice about which option to take. But as the criminal defendant, it’s hard to see the situation in any way other than that which your own viewpoint and emotions takes you. You will miss opportunities for actions that can mitigate the situation, and you won’t easily be able to analyze what should be done from a neutral standpoint.
Not certain what you think representing yourself does to put your right not to self-incriminate at risk. Care to elaborate?
While lawyers will represent themselves for trivial stuff like a parking ticket or noise complaint, but for a real criminal case it’s pretty much always a bad idea because they’re too close to the case. Like DSYoung says, handling a case well takes a certain amount of objectivity, which the person involved in the case lacks. It’s easy to make an emotional response instead of a logical response, it’s easy to ‘know’ a piece of information that you shouldn’t rely on since you were there, and to miss ‘big picture’ things like possible cases to cite because you’re in the middle of the situation.
No. Your right against self-incrimination remains completely intact, though people representing themselves often screw up and make incriminating statements without realizing it. The state still has to meet the same burden of proof, and the 5th amendment means that the prosecutor cannot call you as a witness, the only way you take the stand is if you choose to.
You probably have the medical skill to wash a cut and put on a bandage; you probably don’t to do open-heart surgery.
You probably have the legal skill to represent yourself in a small claims case; you probably don’t to represent yourself in a murder case.
And yes, a lawyer who represents himself usually has a fool for a client. As noted above, you’re too close to the case and cannot be the dispassionate professional you need. The higher the stakes, the more it makes sense to hire counsel.
I served on a jury (speeding ticket) where the defendant did pretty much the opposite: he either inadvertently or foolishly declined to testify. It’s hard to incriminate yourself when you can’t say anything at all about what happened…
A hearing, maybe. I daresay most people would find themselves hopelessly out of their depth in a trial.
That said, I saw a guy do okay for himself once, but only because the juniorest of juniors sent by the defendant’s law firm was so incompetent.
It was probably a misconception on my part where I thought representing yourself exposed you to questioning by the prosecution. Thinking about it more, that would only happen if you chose to put yourself on the stand, right?
Even if you put yourself on the stand, the prosecutor is limited in cross-examination to asking questions that address your testimony. If you never mention your gun, he cannot ask you about your gun. It is, however, extremely difficult for you to constrain your own testimony, and a little awkward to raise objections from the witness box.