Faretta v. California
Faretta v. California is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the constitutional right of defendants to represent themselves in criminal trials under the Sixth Amendment. The case originated when Anthony Faretta, charged with grand theft, requested to waive his public defender due to concerns over the attorney's capacity to provide adequate representation given their heavy caseload. Although the trial judge initially permitted Faretta to self-represent, doubts about his legal knowledge led to the revocation of that permission, resulting in a public defender being appointed for him.
After being convicted, Faretta appealed, arguing that his right to self-representation had been denied. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in his favor, concluding that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of "assistance of counsel" implies a corresponding right for defendants to conduct their own defense if they choose to do so knowingly and intelligently. The ruling emphasized that while self-representation is allowed, judges must assess a defendant's ability to effectively represent themselves. This case highlights the balance between the right to effective legal counsel and the autonomy of defendants in navigating their own legal representation.
On this Page
Faretta v. California
The Case: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on self-representation
Date: Decided on June 30, 1975
Significance: In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to conduct their own defense.
Charged with grand theft, Anthony Faretta was appointed a public defender at his arraignment. Worried that the public defender’s heavy caseload would prevent him from giving his case adequate attention, Faretta asked to represent himself. He had previously represented himself in a case, but his trial judge in this case was hesitant to grant his request. Nevertheless, after cautioning Faretta of the ramifications of waiving counsel, the judge accepted his request. Before the trial began, the judge reviewed Faretta’s ability to represent himself by questioning him on jury selection and on the hearsay rule. Not satisfied with Faretta’s responses, the judge revoked his earlier decision and appointed a public defender for Faretta.
Faretta was tried and found guilty. Afterward, he appealed his conviction on the basis that he had been denied the right to conduct his own defense. An appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision, noting that Faretta had no constitutional right to represent himself, and the Supreme Court of California refused to review the case. Faretta then appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Court decided in Faretta’s favor, ruling that the Sixth Amendment’s phrase “assistance of counsel” means that defendants are primarily responsible for their own defense. The Court added that counsel must be available to provide aid to receptive defendants. In essence, therefore, the Sixth Amendment confers a right to self-representation. The Court also noted that when defendants “knowingly and intelligently” give up right to counsel after being apprised of the dangers of self-representation, their choices should be noted in the court records. Therefore, in forcing Faretta to accept a state-appointed public defender against his will, the California court deprived him of his constitutional right to conduct his own defense.
The right to counsel is guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Criminal defendants are always reminded of this when the Miranda rights are read to them. A corollary to this right to counsel, however, is that counsel must be effective. To be certain that lay persons unfamiliar with the intricacies of the law do not jeopardize their cases, even when they are innocent, defendants are encouraged to use the knowledge and skills of professional counsel. Nevertheless, defendants may waive the assistance of counsel and represent themselves in court.
Judges have the responsibility to determine if defendants are capable of acting as their attorneys. They consider several matters in making this determination: Can the defendants communicate effectively in English? Have they enough basic legal knowledge to conduct their defenses without unnecessary interruptions, delays, or the possibility of mistrials or appeals? Defendants who choose to defend themselves cannot afterward complain that they lacked effective counsel.
Bibliography
Acker, J. R., and D. C. Brody. Criminal Procedure: A Contemporary Perspective. 2d ed. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett, 2004.
Roberson, C. Criminal Procedure Today: Issues and Cases. 2d ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2003.
Stuckey, G. B., C. Roberson, and H. Wallace. Procedures in the Justice System. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2004.
Zalman, M. Criminal Procedure: Constitution and Society. 3d ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2002.