skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 31664 Find in a Library
Title: CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS AT THE BAR OF THEIR OWN DEFENSE FARETTA V CALIFORNIA
Journal: AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW  Volume:13  Issue:2  Dated:(FALL 1975)  Pages:335-364
Author(s): S SARFATTI
Corporate Author: American Bar Association
United States of America
Date Published: 1975
Page Count: 30
Sponsoring Agency: American Bar Association
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THE US SUPREME COURT LIMITED THE ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT TO ACT AS ONE'S OWN COUNSEL TO INSTANCES WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS LEAST LIKELY TO DISRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS AND MOST LIKELY TO DEFEND ADEQUATELY.
Abstract: 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)
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Judicial decisions; Judicial process; Right to counsel; Right to Due Process; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=31664

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.