I was watching a video where the defendant in a criminal trial stated that while she could afford an attorney, she stated that she couldn’t find anyone to represent her (presumably because they weren’t willing to accede to her demands that they make frivolous legal arguments). The state wasn’t willing to negotiate a plea offer until she waived counsel (or hired an attorney). She ultimately elected to waive counsel, but what if she hadn’t and stuck to her story that no one was willing to represent her? What remedies are available to judges in this instance?
I have seen cases where sovcits try to get new public defenders because the lawyer won’t try to claim that the entity charged is in fact their strawman or whatever, but often the judges will say either take the counsel offered (unless there’s a real, legal reason not to) or go pro se, but I am not sure either how that holds up on appeal or how it might apply here.
I would imagine the judge would assign a public defender or do whatever they do when someone’s too crazy to actually be tried in a criminal case.
In any event, I can’t see any reasonable judge feeling bound by some sovcit’s kookery and nonsense. It might go so far as contempt charges if they were to persist.
Even if the judge assigns counsel, counsel cannot take instructions from their client that are contrary to their ethical duties (eg perjured testimony). If a client insists on such instructions a lawyer may have to withdraw, even though appointed by a judge.
If an accused is suffering severe mental impairment, there may be a hearing to determine if they are competent to stand trial. However, that is a very high bar to clear.
Having extremely unusual beliefs about the legal system is not necessarily a sign of mental impairment, so it may be very difficult to argue for incompetence to stand trial.
Out of curiosity, the right to a lawyer only applies to criminal trials, not civil cases, right? If a SovCit is in civil court for something, and no lawyer will take them, then does the SovCit just have to represent themselves?
I’ve seen judges appoint a public defender to “consult” with the defendant, but they don’t participate in the case like they would if they “represented” the defendant. It’s a tough situation.
In my understanding (not a lawyer), you also have to prove that you’re in need of a public defender. Unless you’re in poverty you have to hire your own lawyer, even in a criminal case.
The OP posits a situation where the defendant can afford a lawyer, but can’t find one that can represent their radical arguments, so a public defender wouldn’t apply.
Honestly, I’d bet that most SovCits would love to represent themselves anyway so they can have their say, and may consider them more knowledgeable about “real” law than a licensed lawyer would be. So this probably isn’t a problem in their minds.
As to what happens, you see plenty of YouTube videos with the real world consequences.
I’m sure it varies by jurisdiction, but the places I’m familiar with were pretty loose with “indigent” status. (since hiring a lawyer for a felony can cost a lot of money). Sometimes, they’d appoint a public defender but require the defendant to repay the county the cost. (a lot less). Most people who can hire a private criminal attorney do so. Even if it means borrowing, mortgaging, or whatever it takes. There’s a perception (often but not always true) that a private lawyer will do a better job. And if you’re charged with a crime, the stakes are high.
They typically fire their court-appointed lawyers, often because they believe (or at least claim they do) that lawyers hold noble titles (esquire) and are therefore still part of the UK or some such.
I can’t believe this lady found the “one weird trick”. In the video, the judge granted a continuance to allow her one more chance to try to hire an attorney, but not sure what will happen if (when) she returns to court unrepresented.
If the judge moves forward with the trial, would an appeal succeed? There’s certainly no testimony as to why no one will work with her, and it would be privileged anyway. This is in Kansas, BTW.
This. The client demands that the attorney make a defense based on non-laws and misinterpreted cases. The attorney cannot ethically file a motion like dismissing the case based on the lack of jurisdiction under the 6th Amendment (which has nothing to do with jurisdiction) so the defendant says he is getting inadequate representation from the attorney.
Didn’t SCOTUS just rule on this? I seem to remember a thread on it and Justice Thomas wrote the opinion.
Not exactly. They argue that the unratified TONA Constitutional amendment applies to people that use the title “esquire” therefore the judge and prosecutor are somehow disqualified from practicing law.
This sort of thing always depends on the law of the jurisdiction. I’ve seen cases where the accused runs through a series of lawyers and finally the Court says, “That’s enough. We’re going ahead, whether you have a lawyer or not.”
I was involved in one case where the accused, charged with murder, went through six lawyers, and in the end had to defend himself (unsuccessfully).
That cite is very interesting, and not for what we’re thinking of in this thread. Per wiki, here’s the text of the unratified amendment. Bolding mine.
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
So if this really was in the constitution, the act of taking a bribe from a foreign government would be instant loss of citizenship and ejection from any Federal office.
Sounds like something that might have been useful to apply to a certain Putin agent now prominent in US politics.
I would imagine that’s a case of dotting every “i” and crossing every “t” so as not to give opponents of the legal system any ammunition to claim this person was railroaded for their beliefs, etc…
More like dotting i’s & t’s to ensure the defendant doesn’t have legit grounds for appeal.
The wackos don’t care about real world actual factual “ammunition” for their cause. They’re perfectly happy to make up mountains of fake ammunition that’s just as effective, if not more so, on their target market.
Has there ever been a single sov cit case where the defendant repeatedly drove away lawyers appointed to represent them, refused to represent themselves and so charges were dismissed?
Highly doubtful.
It would just be delaying the inevitable and pissing everyone off along the way, which is how sov cits roll in general.
Wow. My father was a professor at a US university, and an expert on the Soviet government. He occasionally gave lectures at universities in Russia in the Soviet era, which were owned b the government, and he was given what probably amounted to emoluments for his lectures.
The judge can always withhold or revoke bail, so the sov cit is in jail the entire time all this finagling over lawyers is going on. The guy hasn’t been convicted of anything, but the effect is the same.
