leagal question about representing yourself

[copperwindow]

In the US, can a 14 year old accused of a crime represent him or herself in court?

[racer72]

It would depend on the crime. If it was a minor misdemeanor, the judge at a minimum would require a parent or guardian. Anything more severe, the court will supply counsel. The one time a step daughter of mine got it trouble, she was provided an attorney. That was for malicious michief and destruction of private property. Of course with any legal question, a lot depends on your local and state laws. Reading your question again, the actual answer would be no.

[copperwindow]

Doesn’t the bill of rights garentee that one can defend themselves?

[Gfactor]

First, a small number of states provide that a decision to waive counsel by a juvenile is invalid unless it is informed by counsel. The leading case of State ex rel. M v. Taylor, 166 W.Va. 511, 276 S.E.2d 199 (W.Va. 1981) concluded that no waiver would be considered knowing and effective unless it was informed by the advice of counsel. The West Virginia court pointed to the unrebuttably presumptive incapacity of minors to waive their rights in other areas of the law or to make legally binding decisions and determined that it would be ironic if a significant right could be waived in a proceeding where the child’s liberty is at stake. In State v. Doe, 95 N.M. 302, 621 P.2d 519 (1980), the court agreed that a juvenile could not waive the mandatory initial appointment of counsel, while it reserved the question of the youth’s ability to waive the assistance of counsel during later stages of the proceedings with the advice of the lawyer appointed or retained initially.

The second group of cases permits the waiver of a lawyer, but only after consultation with a parent or guardian. In Williams v. State, 433 N.E.2d 769 (Ind. 1982), the Indiana Supreme Court pointed to a statutory requirement that a child must be provided an opportunity for “meaningful consultation” with a parent or other custodian before effectively waiving any rights guaranteed by the federal or state constitutions or any law. Similar holdings have come in court decisions in Arizona, Louisiana, and Montana. (In re Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. JV-94000086, 898 P.2d 517 (Ariz. App. 1993); State in interest of Jones, 372 So. 2d 779 (La. App. 1979); Edward C. v. Collings, 193 Mont. 426, 632 P.2d 325 (1981).) In the third category is the state of Georgia, which provides by statute that counsel must be provided for any child not represented by a parent or guardian. Case law in that state would go a step further by requiring the unwaivable right to counsel where the parents are present but have a conflict of interest with their child. (S. v. State, 134 Ga. App. 843, 216 S.E.2d 670 (1975).)

The fourth category consists of the majority of reported cases addressing the waivability of the right to counsel by juveniles, which use a “totality of the circumstances” test to determine whether such a waiver is valid. These cases assume the ability of a minor to waive the assistance of a lawyer in delinquency or other cases involving a possible loss of liberty, but focus instead on whether such a waiver was knowing and voluntary. That determination is a question of fact to be decided by the court in light of all the circumstances, including the individual characteristics of the juvenile and the nature and manner of advice given about the right to counsel. These courts frequently analogize the waiver of counsel at trial to the waiver of the right to a lawyer during police interrogation, and thus apply the same “totality of the circumstances” test. (See, e.g., McLemore v. Cubley, 569 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1978); Smith v. Crouse, 413 F.2d 979 (10th Cir. 1969); People v. Kitley, 59 Mich. App. 71, 228 N.W.2d 834 (1975).) In Kitley, for example, the court said that the relevant circumstances would include such factors as the juvenile’s age, his or her education, prior juvenile court experience, mental state, financial situation, and the pressures or inducements that might have had an impact on the decision to waive counsel. Appellate courts are fairly insistent that the juvenile be fully informed of the right to counsel and the consequences of being tried without a lawyer before permitting waiver, even with older, admittedly competent juveniles.

Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., Juveniles’ Waiver of the Right to Counsel: http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/13-1jwr.html

[SnakesCatLady]

@copperwindow

Doesn’t the bill of rights garentee that one can defend themselves?

A 14 year old is not legally able to enter into a contract or make other binding legal decisions for him/herself. Many laws give rights to adults that are not permitted to children. The Constitution also gives the right to vote to all - but you have to be a legal adult.

[anson2995]

@copperwindow

Doesn’t the bill of rights garentee that one can defend themselves?

Nope.

The Sixth Amendment says that defendant have the right to an attorney, a right which has been clarified by a number of key supereme court decisions (most notably, Gideon v Wainwright).

The right to represent yourself was not clearly established until 1975, with the case of Faretta v California. The Supreme Court has carved out some exceptions, such as when the state belives the defendant is not competent (Martinez v California, 2003). Public opinion was swayed be cases like Colin Ferguson, who was allowed to represent himself even though it seemed clear that he was insane.