Somehow I think that if push came to shove that SCOTUS would rule that the 6th Amendment gives you the right to counsel but it is up to you to use it. So if I dismiss all of my attorneys then I still have the right to council but I am refusing to use it so then the court could assign an attorney who cannot quit and leave it up to me to use them or not.
And again, I think we discussed this within the last few months that council does not have to present defenses that violate their ethical standards at the demand of their client but I cannot find it now. Mandela Effect?!
Somewhere along the way this becomes the criminal equivalent of a vexatious litigant. It might not slot neatly into one of the established categories of normal rules of procedure for criminal matters.
It is a darn shame that while this SovCit nonsense is growing and so we’d like to develop more creative / aggressive ways of dealing with their nuttery is also the exact time that the last thing the USA needs is additional police / prosecution / judiciary ability to label someone a hazard to society and the administration of justice and then deal with them harshly.
The accused continuing to be at liberty could pose a risk, I suppose.
I wonder, if we are talking about a criminal case, with a victim, if the victim has standing to file a civil suit demanding that the trial take place. I realize that what the victim will ultimately be awarded is financial compensation, and not an actual trial, and I also realize that the “right to a speedy trial” is a right of the accused, and no one else. I just wonder pw far something like that would get, and if that might even push a sovcit (which I first read as Soviet Citizen, and thought what in Hell?) to let the trial go forward.
They probably wouldn’t like to think so, but they are performing a kind of civil disobedience. When you do that, you ultimately have to face the law you are testing. If they’d let their lawyers do their jobs, they might actually make some inroads in stripping some of the laws that interfere with individual freedom.
Of course, none of them are idealists-- they don’t want everyone to be lawless, just themselves. They are toddlers who just want to do what they want to do-- at least, IME. They often want laws for other people, mostly “keep off my property”; “don’t steal from me” types of laws. I run into them in southern Indiana and Kentucky sometimes. Especially back when I used to go to a gun range to target-shoot, before I had a baby and got rid of my gun.
There is a visible parallel between most of us probably needing to stand up to a growing police state at some point in the next few years, and the current sorta libertarian “don’t tread on me” crowd, and the sovcit crowd. They’re all protesting what they think of as excessive and misdirected government power.
The difference is what sort of world they want to put in place of current or imagined near future reality. And the sovcits want the impossible: freedom for themselves, and only themselves. Plus access to the full range of government services and benefits a la carte. At no cost to themselves. As you say, it’s toddler “thinking”.
In places where sovcits are common, I wonder what happens when they come into conflict? E.g. two Idaho rural sovcit neighbors where one guy’s backyard gunfire keeps hitting the other guy’s house. Or two sovcits both get uppity in traffic and next thing you know their pickup trucks have collided.
ISTM judges have control of their courtroom. There is no right to free counsel if the defendant can afford counsel on their own (which I believe is a pretty high bar before being deemed unable to afford one).
Which means the defendant either gets an attorney or is told to represent themself. The judge will have to jump through a few procedural hoops but I can’t think why this could not be done.
I assume the judge might possibly threaten contempt for a difficult defendant and toss them in jail until they choose to comply. My understanding is there is no limit to how long someone can sit in jail for something like this since they hold the means to their own release at any time…comply with the court.
The judge can also proceed without cooperation. The sovcit can try to scramble proceedings. The judge can ignore it and move ahead.
I also read a judge can appoint a standby counsel. Not really sure how that works though. I guess the attorney is just there if necessary but otherwise does not really deal with the defendant. I really do not know. It seems it happened in the Dylann Roof case.
What if you couldn’t find counsel for other reasons, e.g. all the lawyers didn’t like you because you have red hair. An unlikely hypothetical to be sure, but AFAIK, you could claim that and they can’t refute it, unless you waived attorney-client privilege. If that’s the case, would it be a violation of your 6th Amendment rights to be tried without counsel?
Correct that there is no right to assigned counsel if you can afford one. Not quite right on the “pretty high bar” part. In places I’m familiar with, it’s a pretty low bar. I’ve seen only a couple of cases where the defendant comes back to court and says “I was turned down for a public defender but I can’t afford a to hire a lawyer.” In those cases the Judge said something like “I’ll appoint a lawyer for you, but you’ll have to pay the county back what it cost.”
A fun encounter would involve a sov cit getting another sov cit to do work on their home or repair their car, then paying the bill in the form of a Little Promissary Note, Bill of Exchange or currency issued by Romana Didulo, Queen of Canada.
Assume that the public defenders keep quitting because they refuse to present a SovCit defense.
Would the 6th Amendment be appeased if an attorney were assigned for all of the routine work like making standard motions and informing the defendant of timelines under Court Rules but it is on the defendant to get an attorney to present the defense itself.
Not sure if that is what a standby attorney does in some jurisdictions.
Is there any case law on defendants wanting counsel but the trial proceeding when they can’t find anybody?
I have seen videos where an indigent sovcit fires the PD, but the judge advises them that they don’t get to pick unless they want to hire their own counsel. Not sure if that would apply to this case, though, since they aren’t being denied counsel.