What happens if you refuse to get a lawyer?

[snailboy]

Suppose you’re charged with some major crime and the courts decide you don’t qualify for an appointed lawyer, but you refuse to get one yourself. Do they force you to represent yourself? Does the trial proceed much like it does when representing yourself against a traffic violation?

[racer72]

Everyone qualifies for a court appointed attorney for all but the most minor criminal offenses, the courts cannot deny a defendant legal representation. Those that choose to represent themself will still have an attorney sitting at the defendant’s table. Lack of proper legal representation has been the basis of many a successful legal appeal.

[Bricker]

@racer72

Everyone qualifies for a court appointed attorney for all but the most minor criminal offenses, the courts cannot deny a defendant legal representation. Those that choose to represent themself will still have an attorney sitting at the defendant’s table. Lack of proper legal representation has been the basis of many a successful legal appeal.

What’s the penalty for posting wrong answers in GQ?

[Lemur866]

They shove a living snake up your ass?

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

What’s the penalty for posting wrong answers in GQ?

You don’t have to answer that!

[Muffin]

@racer72

Everyone qualifies for a court appointed attorney for all but the most minor criminal offenses.

Cite, please.

@racer72

the courts cannot deny a defendant legal representation.

That was not the question. The question dealt with a person refusing a lawer, not the court prohibiting a lawyer.

@racer72

Those that choose to represent themself will still have an attorney sitting at the defendant’s table.

Cite, please.

@racer72

Lack of proper legal representation has been the basis of many a successful legal appeal.

Cite, please, with respect to refusing a lawyer being grounds for appeal.

You might recall Handy, who provided medical opinions that were often very wrong.

[Muffin]

@snailboy

Suppose you’re charged with some major crime and the courts decide you don’t qualify for an appointed lawyer, but you refuse to get one yourself. Do they force you to represent yourself? Does the trial proceed much like it does when representing yourself against a traffic violation?

If a person refuses to be respresented by a lawyer, the proceedings keep on going, only with the person representing himself. A court will usually grant an adjournment for a person to find another lawyer, but not if the person sacks lawyer after lawyer after lawyer after lawer . . . . Sometimes the court will order a psychiatric assessment, which depending on the circumstances may result in the court forcing a lawyer upon the person because the person is a loon.

[Mahaloth]

@Muffin

If a person refuses to be respresented by a lawyer, the proceedings keep on going, only with the person representing himself. A court will usually grant an adjournment for a person to find another lawyer, but not if the person sacks lawyer after lawyer after lawyer after lawer . . . . Sometimes the court will order a psychiatric assessment, which depending on the circumstances may result in the court forcing a lawyer upon the person because the person is a loon.

This is what I figured.

You get to represent yourself, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[cornflakes]

IANAL, but I have heard of one judge who would call for a break and order the defendant to either return with a lawyer or be found in contempt.

[Muffin]

@cornflakes

IANAL, but I have heard of one judge who would call for a break and order the defendant to either return with a lawyer or be found in contempt.

Would that be when the accused was refusing to use any lawyer, or would it be when the accused wanted a lawyer or wanted a new lawyer? There is a big difference between the first and the latter two. With the latter two, the threat of contempt is sometimes used to encourage the accused to not dick around pretending to be trying to get a lawyer when in fact he is simply stalling the proceedings.

[Gfactor]

@racer72

Everyone qualifies for a court appointed attorney for all but the most minor criminal offenses, the courts cannot deny a defendant legal representation. Those that choose to represent themself will still have an attorney sitting at the defendant’s table. Lack of proper legal representation has been the basis of many a successful legal appeal.

@General Questions Rules

6. Guesses, WAGs, and speculation. We permit some educated guessing. Truly wild guesses aren’t especially helpful. We have some experts who post here. If you don’t have much information, give an expert a chance to answer by waiting until a question is about to fall off the first page before making a guess.

Please don’t jump in with a WAG on the second post.

Gfactor
General Questions Moderator

BTW, it’s not “lack of proper legal representation” that gives rise to an appeal–it’s called “ineffective assistance of counsel.” The term has years of legal interpretation attached to it, it’s not the same thing, and it’s fairly difficult to establish.

[Annie-Xmas]

Long Island shooter Colin Ferguson fired his attorneys and insisting on representing himself. His cross examination of the prosecution witnesses was hysterical. “But you didn’t really see me shoot anybody, did you?” “I saw you just like I’m seeing you now.”

He was found guilty of six counts of murder.

[cornflakes]

@Muffin

Would that be when the accused was refusing to use any lawyer, or would it be when the accused wanted a lawyer or wanted a new lawyer? There is a big difference between the first and the latter two. With the latter two, the threat of contempt is sometimes used to encourage the accused to not dick around pretending to be trying to get a lawyer when in fact he is simply stalling the proceedings.

It’s been years, but here’s more or less how it went one time:

Judge: “Where’s your lawyer?”
Defendant (rises out of chair): “Sir, I have chosen to represent myself.”
Judge: “Bullshit. We’re going to break for lunch. When we come back at one, you will be accompanied by a lawyer or you will be in contempt. Court adjourned.”

For what it’s worth, the judge was generally considered an old coot. The above was told to me by a cousin who was a policeman at the time. Sure it’s a friend of a friend story, but my cousin didn’t have any reason to lie, and the story it is consistent with that judge’s character.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

I was once arrested for a minor but very embarrassing crime completely by mistake; there was a warrant out for Skald da Rhymer. In court I tried to tell the judge that I could not be the person in question, as the physical description of the other Rhymer was so different–fifteen years younger & a different race, among other things–but she insisted I get a lawyer and refused to listen to anything I had to say until I did. I ended up spending $350 to get the stupid mistake handled.

[Procrustus]

Judges do apply pressure to get people to “come back with a lawyer.” You have, however, a constitutional right to defend yourself if your waiver of the right to counsel is knowing and voluntary.
(Judges hate it, since you’ll make everyone’s job more difficult)

[Gfactor]

@Procrustus

You have, however, a constitutional right to defend yourself if your waiver of the right to counsel is knowing and voluntary.
(Judges hate it, since you’ll make everyone’s job more difficult)

Yep.

Self-Representation .–The Court has held that the Sixth Amendment, in addition to guaranteeing the right to retained or appointed counsel, also guarantees a defendant the right to represent himself. 248 It is a right the defendant must adopt knowingly and intelligently; under some circumstances the trial judge may deny the authority to exercise it, as when the defendant simply lacks the competence to make a knowing or intelligent waiver of counsel or when his self-representation is so disruptive of orderly procedures that the judge may curtail it.

The essential elements of self-representation were spelled out in McKaskle v. Wiggins, 249 a case involving the self-represented defendant’s rights vis-a-vis ‘‘standby counsel’’ appointed by the trial court. The ‘‘core of the Faretta right’’ is that the defendant ‘‘is entitled to preserve actual control over the case he chooses to present to the jury,’’ and consequently, standby counsel’s participation ‘‘should not be allowed to destroy the jury’s perception that the defendant is representing himself.’’ 250 But participation of standby counsel even in the jury’s presence and over the defendant’s objection does not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights when serving the basic purpose of aiding the defendant in complying with routine courtroom procedures and protocols and thereby relieving the trial judge of these tasks. 251

Notes:

[Footnote 248] 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) (per se rule excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony violates right).

[Footnote 249] 465 U.S. 168 (1984).

[Footnote 250] Id. at 178.

[Footnote 251] Id. at 184.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/10.html

Here’s a good case that shows how messy this can sometimes get: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nd&vol=990135&invol=1

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@racer72

Everyone qualifies for a court appointed attorney for all but the most minor criminal offenses, the courts cannot deny a defendant legal representation. Those that choose to represent themself will still have an attorney sitting at the defendant’s table. Lack of proper legal representation has been the basis of many a successful legal appeal.

@Bricker

What’s the penalty for posting wrong answers in GQ?

Hanging one’s head in shame, I think.

racer72’s answer was correct according to the Massachussetts Rules of Criminal Procedure as presented in Legally Blonde, for the record…

@Gfactor

BTW, it’s not “lack of proper legal representation” that gives rise to an appeal–it’s called “ineffective assistance of counsel.” The term has years of legal interpretation attached to it, it’s not the same thing, and it’s fairly difficult to establish.

And requires that you do retain counsel, right?

[Gfactor]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

And requires that you do retain counsel, right?

Well, not quite, but I think I get what you mean, and that is correct. You can’t generally claim that you screwed up your own defense on appeal–as the last case I linked suggests, the argument on appeal there is that you didn’t knowingly waive your right to counsel–but you certainly can claim ineffective assistance of appointed counsel (retained usually mines hired). Is that what you had in mind?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Gfactor

Well, not quite, but I think I get what you mean, and that is correct. You can’t generally claim that you screwed up your own defense on appeal–as the last case I linked suggests, the argument on appeal there is that you didn’t knowingly waive your right to counsel–but you certainly can claim ineffective assistance of appointed counsel (retained usually mines hired). Is that what you had in mind?

Yes.

I’m curious, though. From McKaskle:

The ‘‘core of the Faretta right’’ is that the defendant ‘‘is entitled to preserve actual control over the case he chooses to present to the jury,’’ and consequently, standby counsel’s participation ‘‘should not be allowed to destroy the jury’s perception that the defendant is representing himself.’’

What is the importance of maintaining the jury’s perception that the defendant is representing himself? Presumably, when he waives his right to counsel, he assumes full responsibility for his own defense and the jury isn’t supposed to be giving him bonus points for going it alone…

[Gfactor]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What is the importance of maintaining the jury’s perception that the defendant is representing himself? Presumably, when he waives his right to counsel, he assumes full responsibility for his own defense and the jury isn’t supposed to be giving him bonus points for going it alone…

I think it’s a status thing:

Second, participation by standby counsel without the defendant’s consent should not be allowed to destroy the jury’s perception that the defendant is representing himself. 9 The defendant’s appearance in the status of one conducting his own defense is important in a criminal trial, since the right to appear pro se exists to affirm the accused’s individual dignity and autonomy. In related contexts the courts have recognized that a defendant has a right to be present at all important stages of trial, Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934), that he may not normally be forced to appear in court in shackles or prison garb, Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 504 -505 (1976), and that he has a right to present testimony [465 U.S. 168, 179] in his own behalf, see Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 225 (1971); Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 612 (1972). **Appearing before the jury in the status of one who is defending himself may be equally important to the pro se defendant. From the jury’s perspective, the message conveyed by the defense may depend as much on the messenger as on the message itself. From the defendant’s own point of view, the right to appear pro se can lose much of its importance if only the lawyers in the courtroom know that the right is being exercised.

---

Text of footnote 9:
Faretta anticipated this second requirement. In its footnote on standby counsel Faretta cited three pages of United States v. Dougherty, 154 U.S. App. D.C. 76, 473 F.2d 1113 (1972), in which we find this statement: “The utility of an amicus appointment is dependent on explanation to and cooperation by [the] defendant, and on understanding, too, that he may claim with some merit that his pro se rights include his right to appear before the jury in the status of one defending himself, and that this is defeated if a too conspicuous role is played by an attorney, unless it clearly appears to the jury that he does not have the status of defense counsel.” Id., at 88, 473 F.2d, at 1125 (footnote omitted).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=465&invol=168 (Emphasis added.)