THE RECORD IN FARETTA PRESENTED THE COURT WITH THE NECESSITY OF HAVING TO RECONCILE TWO CONFLICTING IMPERATIVES IN THE SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL ADJUDICATION. ON THE ONE HAND, THERE WAS THE IMPERATIVE THAT THE ACCUSED BE ACCORDED SOME ROLE IN MANAGING THE PROCESS IN WHICH HIS LIBERTY IS AT STAKE. IN A SYSTEM WHICH ALLOCATES TO COUNSEL THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DIRECTING THE COURSE OF LITIGATION, IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE WHY THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE OPPORTUNITY OF DEFENDING ACCORDING TO HIS OWN PERCEPTIONS AND DECIDING FOR HIMSELF HOW RIGHTS SECURED TO HIM SHOULD BE EXERCISED. YET ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE WAS THE COUNTERVAILING IMPERATIVE THAT CRIMINAL ADJUDICATIONS MUST PROCEED IN AN ORDERLY FASHION AND RESULT IN TRUSTWORTHY GUILT DETERMINATIONS. GIVING DEFERENCE TO EACH, THE COURT STRUCK THE BALANCE BETWEEN THESE COMPETING INTERESTS BY RECOGNIZING THE PRO SE RIGHT ON A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME CONDITIONING ITS ASSERTION ON A SHOWING THAT THE PRO SE DECISION WAS REACHED COMPETENTLY, KNOWINGLY, AND INTELLIGENTLY. BY THUS LIMITING THE ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT THE COURT PRESERVED BOTH THE DEFENDANT'S INTEREST IN INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN RELIABLE VERDICTS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)