holding that defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself “because he was denied actual control of the case presented to the jury” when standby counsel presented a theory of defense that was inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of defense
How later courts described this case
- holding that defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself “because he was denied actual control of the case presented to the jury” when standby counsel presented a theory of defense that was inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of defense
- emphasizing in finding a denial of defendant's right to represent himself that defendant "explicitly objected to the court's order that appointed counsel appear on his behalf and represent him at trial" and that "[t]hroughout the entire trial, [defendant] at no time acquiesced in the presentation of a defense by appointed counsel"
- holding that the trial court may not require hybrid representation where a defendant makes a proper request to proceed pro se
- imposing hybrid representation on a defendant who waives his right to counsel and chooses instead to exercise his right to represent himself violates the Sixth Amendment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SELBY, J.,
concurring with separate opinion.
I join in the majority opinion but write separately to make a particular observation about pro se litigation. A capital defendant’s request to proceed pro se places the trial judge in a most untenable position. The judge must effectuate the defendant’s right to self-representation as well as the defendant’s right to a fair and meaningful trial. Both of these rights are of constitutional dimension and, indeed, the United States Supreme Court has declared that the right of self-representation is fundamental, holding that, “Like others, prisoners have the constitutional right to petition the Government for redress of their grievances, which includes a reasonable right of access to the courts.” Hudson v. Palmer; 468 U.S. 517, 523 , 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3198 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (citation omitted). I believe that equal access to justice would be better served if our entire judicial system were better equipped to handle pro se litigation.