The Supreme Court made a 7-2 ruling today denying a defendant’s right to represent him or herself in court if they suffer from mental illness at a judge’s sole discretion. This is despite the fact that the defendant may have already been found competent to stand trial.
The reason for this limit on the right to represent oneself (guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution)?
Concern that a trial could turn into a farce! As though lawyers don’t already do that regularly in courtrooms across the nation (anyone remember the O.J. trial, for instance?).
Here’s the background of the case:
Ahmad Edwards was initially found to be schizophrenic and suffering from delusions and spent most of the five years after the shooting in state psychiatric facilities. But by 2005, he was judged competent to stand trial.
Edwards asked to represent himself. A judge denied the request because he was concerned that Edwards’ trial would not be fair. Edwards, represented by a lawyer, was convicted anyway and sentenced to 30 years in prison. [...]
“The Constitution permits states to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial … but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion.
Honestly, though, since it’s up to the judge’s opinion, this just opens the door for potential abuse. Any defendant who has ever had a mental health diagnosis — depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, even an adjustment disorder! — could be covered by this new ruling. And while most of us will never have to deal with a day in court, much less the decision to represent ourselves in court, it is a chilling reminder that people who have mental disorders are still viewed as second-class citizens by much of the nation — even Supreme Court justices who should know better.
If you’re competent enough to stand trial, you should be competent enough to represent yourself if you so choose. While almost always a bad decision (unless you’ve studied law extensively), it is still a choice guaranteed by our Constitution. Limiting that choice to certain citizens that you’ve already decided were competent seems hypocritical and contradictory.
We’re saddened to read of this decision and hope it doesn’t result in additional abuses to the freedoms guaranteed people with mental health concerns.
Read the full article: Court puts limits on mentally ill defendants
(6 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading ...You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Links to This Article
» Court Limits Mentally Ill Defendants (6/19/2008)
3 Comments to
“Court Limits Mentally Ill Defendants”
I don’t know if my last comment made it through as my browser crashed but this one’s shorter, sweeter, and better, IMHO -
If an accused can’t represent himself in court if he has ever had a diagnosis of a mental illness, or just if the judge thinks he should have one, then the same will apply to lawyers. And you can sue your lawyer for malpractice if he’s seen a pshrink and not disclosed it and his malpractice insurance can get canceled.
I think this egregious decision will result in some very narrow standards for psych labelign and finally the end of the whole unscientific nonsense of diagnosis, but in the interim those of us with psych labels are in for some bad bad treatment. Scary.
Oh, and a judge with a hint of a possiblity that he meets a dsm listing should by this standard be removed from office. Now people can object to the rulings of a judge based on his psych label or potential to get one.
I have mixed feelings about the decision.
I am appalled at the reasoning (or lack of), the pejorative attitudes and comments, and the flagrant disrespect on the part of some of the Supreme Court justices, including Justice Kennedy who made the audience laugh with, “There are all kinds of nuts who could get 90 percent on the bar exam.” (Although that may say more about his competency requirements than about ours.)
I am a poster child for protecting, and preserving the integrity of, the Bill of Rights and Constitution. There can be no compromise in any area. The rights and protections belong to everyone. Period.
Here’s my quandary.
The criteria for competency are marginal at best. A person has to be able to communicate in a rational way with the representing attorney and understand the charges levied. That just isn’t enough when it comes to self-representation. These are two separate issues that require two separate evaluations.
In a medical setting, I would be able to talk with my doctor and understand that a sliced artery would likely kill me. Competency test passed.
But that doesn’t mean I am competent to refuse medical help because I’m sure I could suture the artery myself.
There were points during my bipolar career when I could have easily passed the mental competency test, but would not have been competent enough to defend myself in a jaywalking case, never mind a criminal case. With the energy and grandiosity of a hypomanic high on my side, I’d tell you – and believe – I should have been the lead attorney in the O.J. Simpson trial because it would have been a done deal that I’d have won. Either side, mind you.
If I were charged with a crime during one of those times, who would be there for me? Who would help me? Who would be my advocate to help keep me from hurting myself, like the Texas defendant with schizophrenia who represented himself in a murder trial? He wore a purple cowboy outfit in court and wanted to call 200 witnesses from a list that included Jesus and John F. Kennedy. He got the death penalty. The US Supreme Court blocked the execution. He was incompetent for execution.
Competent to stand trial, competent to represent himself, but incompetent to be executed.
I don’t know the correct answer. I truly want someone to be there to help protect myself from myself if I need it. But leaving the self-representation ruling to a single judge (who automatically has a duplicitous interest in his own decision) isn’t the right one.
Maybe a panel of three judges who meet and discuss rather make a decision based on biased arguments from biased professionals. Maybe include a psychiatrist. Maybe a panel and me. Maybe begin with a course in Logic 101 for the Supreme Court justices.
Surely there’s a way to protect my rights while recognizing that one of those rights is protection of me.
Join the Conversation! Post a Comment:
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 19 Jun 2008
