indiana
edwards
argued
march
decided
june
indiana
charged
respondent
edwards
attempted
murder
crimes
shooting
attempt
steal
pair
shoes
mental
condition
became
subject
three
competency
proceedings
two
requests
mostly
trial
judge
referring
lengthy
record
psychiatric
reports
trial
noted
edwards
suffered
schizophrenia
concluded
although
appeared
competent
stand
trial
competent
defend
trial
therefore
denied
edwards
request
represented
appointed
counsel
trial
convicted
two
counts
indiana
intermediate
appellate
ordered
new
trial
agreeing
edwards
trial
refusal
permit
represent
deprived
constitutional
right
sixth
amendment
faretta
california
although
finding
record
provided
substantial
support
trial
ruling
indiana
nonetheless
affirmed
intermediate
appellate
ground
faretta
godinez
moran
required
state
allow
edwards
represent
held
constitution
forbid
insisting
upon
representation
counsel
competent
enough
stand
trial
suffer
severe
mental
illness
point
competent
conduct
trial
proceedings
pp
precedents
frame
question
presented
answer
dusky
drope
missouri
set
forth
constitution
mental
competence
standard
forbidding
trial
individual
lacking
rational
factual
understanding
proceedings
sufficient
ability
consult
lawyer
reasonable
degree
rational
understanding
cases
consider
issue
presented
namely
relation
mental
competence
standard
right
similarly
foundational
case
faretta
supra
held
sixth
fourteenth
amendments
include
constitutional
right
proceed
without
counsel
criminal
defendant
voluntarily
intelligently
elects
answer
question
scope
right
finally
although
godinez
supra
presents
question
closer
one
issue
focused
upon
defendant
asked
state
trial
permit
represent
change
pleas
guilty
guilty
godinez
provides
answer
defendant
ability
conduct
defense
trial
expressly
issue
case
see
case
constitutional
holding
state
may
permit
defendant
represent
tell
state
whether
may
deny
defendant
right
represent
trial
pp
several
considerations
taken
together
lead
conclude
constitution
permits
state
limit
defendant
right
insisting
upon
trial
counsel
defendant
lacks
mental
competency
conduct
trial
defense
unless
represented
first
precedent
answering
question
points
slightly
direction
setting
forth
standard
focuses
directly
upon
defendant
ability
consult
lawyer
dusky
drope
assume
representation
counsel
emphasize
counsel
importance
thus
suggesting
though
holding
choosing
forgo
trial
counsel
presents
different
set
circumstances
mental
competency
determination
defendant
stand
trial
also
faretta
rested
conclusion
part
state
cases
consistent
least
two
expressly
adopt
competency
limitation
right
see
second
nature
mental
illness
unitary
concept
varies
degree
vary
time
interferes
individual
functioning
different
times
different
ways
cautions
using
single
competency
standard
decide
whether
defendant
represented
proceed
trial
whether
defendant
goes
trial
must
permitted
represent
third
right
trial
affirm
dignity
defendant
lacks
mental
capacity
conduct
defense
without
assistance
counsel
see
mckaskle
wiggins
may
undercut
basic
constitution
criminal
law
objectives
providing
fair
trial
trial
judge
particularly
one
judge
case
presided
one
edwards
competency
hearings
two
trials
often
prove
best
able
make
mental
capacity
decisions
tailored
particular
defendant
individualized
circumstances
pp
indiana
proposed
standard
deny
criminal
defendant
right
represent
trial
communicate
coherently
jury
rejected
uncertain
standard
work
practice
also
declines
indiana
request
overrule
faretta
today
opinion
may
well
remedy
unfair
trial
concerns
previously
leveled
case
pp
vacated
remanded
breyer
delivered
opinion
roberts
stevens
kennedy
souter
ginsburg
alito
joined
scalia
filed
dissenting
opinion
thomas
joined
indiana
petitioner
ahmad
edwards
writ
certiorari
indiana
june
justice
breyer
delivered
opinion
case
focuses
upon
criminal
defendant
state
found
mentally
competent
stand
trial
represented
counsel
mentally
competent
conduct
trial
must
decide
whether
circumstances
constitution
forbids
state
insisting
defendant
proceed
trial
counsel
state
thereby
denying
defendant
right
represent
see
amdt
faretta
california
conclude
constitution
forbid
state
insist
july
ahmad
edwards
respondent
tried
steal
pair
shoes
indiana
department
store
discovered
drew
gun
fired
store
security
officer
wounded
bystander
caught
charged
attempted
murder
battery
deadly
weapon
criminal
recklessness
theft
mental
condition
subsequently
became
subject
three
competency
proceedings
two
requests
mostly
trial
judge
first
competency
hearing
august
five
months
edwards
arrest
counsel
asked
psychiatric
evaluation
hearing
psychiatrist
neuropsychologist
witnesses
february
august
found
edwards
incompetent
stand
trial
app
committed
logansport
state
hospital
evaluation
treatment
see
second
competency
hearing
march
seven
months
commitment
doctors
found
edwards
condition
improved
point
stand
trial
several
months
later
however
still
trial
edwards
counsel
asked
another
psychiatric
evaluation
march
judge
held
competency
hearing
considered
additional
psychiatric
evidence
april
found
edwards
suffer
ing
mental
illness
competent
assist
attorneys
defense
stand
trial
charged
crimes
third
competency
hearing
april
seven
months
later
still
trial
edwards
counsel
sought
yet
another
psychiatric
evaluation
client
april
held
yet
another
competency
hearing
edwards
counsel
presented
psychiatric
neuropsychological
evidence
showing
edwards
suffering
serious
thinking
difficulties
delusions
testifying
psychiatrist
reported
edwards
understand
charges
unable
cooperate
attorney
defense
schizophrenic
illness
delusions
marked
difficulties
thinking
make
impossible
cooperate
attorney
november
concluded
edwards
competent
stand
trial
ordered
recommitment
state
hospital
first
request
first
trial
june
eight
months
commitment
hospital
reported
edwards
condition
improved
point
become
competent
stand
trial
almost
one
year
edwards
trial
began
trial
edwards
asked
represent
also
asked
continuance
said
needed
order
proceed
pro
se
refused
continuance
edwards
proceeded
trial
represented
counsel
jury
convicted
criminal
recklessness
theft
failed
reach
verdict
charges
attempted
murder
battery
second
request
second
trial
december
state
decided
retry
edwards
attempted
murder
battery
charges
retrial
edwards
asked
permit
represent
referring
lengthy
record
psychiatric
reports
trial
noted
edwards
still
suffered
schizophrenia
concluded
ith
findings
competent
stand
trial
going
find
competent
defend
denied
edwards
request
edwards
represented
appointed
counsel
retrial
jury
convicted
edwards
remaining
counts
edwards
subsequently
appealed
indiana
intermediate
appellate
argued
trial
refusal
permit
represent
retrial
deprived
constitutional
right
amdt
faretta
supra
agreed
ordered
new
trial
matter
went
indiana
found
record
case
presents
substantial
basis
agree
trial
nonetheless
affirmed
intermediate
appellate
belief
precedents
namely
faretta
godinez
moran
required
state
allow
edwards
represent
indiana
request
agreed
consider
whether
constitution
required
trial
allow
edwards
represent
trial
ii
examination
precedents
convinces
us
precedents
frame
question
presented
answer
two
cases
set
forth
constitution
mental
competence
standard
dusky
per
curiam
drope
missouri
specify
constitution
permit
trial
individual
lacks
mental
competency
dusky
defines
competency
standard
including
whether
defendant
rational
well
factual
understanding
proceedings
whether
defendant
sufficient
present
ability
consult
lawyer
reasonable
degree
rational
understanding
emphasis
added
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
drope
repeats
standard
stating
long
accepted
person
whose
mental
condition
lacks
capacity
understand
nature
object
proceedings
consult
counsel
assist
preparing
defense
may
subjected
trial
emphasis
added
neither
case
considered
mental
competency
issue
presented
namely
relation
mental
competence
standard
right
foundational
case
faretta
held
sixth
fourteenth
amendments
include
constitutional
right
proceed
without
counsel
criminal
defendant
voluntarily
intelligently
elects
emphasis
original
implied
right
nearly
universal
conviction
made
manifest
state
law
forcing
lawyer
upon
unwilling
defendant
contrary
basic
right
defend
truly
wants
sixth
amendment
language
granting
rights
accused
sixth
amendment
structure
indicating
rights
sets
forth
related
fair
administration
american
justice
persona
accused
absence
historical
examples
forced
representation
individual
quoting
illinois
allen
brennan
concurring
knowing
intelligent
waiver
counsel
must
honored
respect
individual
lifeblood
faretta
answer
question
us
consider
problem
mental
competency
cf
faretta
literate
competent
understanding
faretta
later
cases
made
clear
right
absolute
see
martinez
appeal
fourth
appellate
right
direct
appeal
criminal
case
mckaskle
wiggins
appointment
standby
counsel
defendant
objection
permissible
faretta
right
abuse
dignity
courtroom
ibid
right
avoid
compliance
relevant
rules
procedural
substantive
law
right
engag
serious
obstructionist
misconduct
referring
illinois
allen
supra
question
concerns
limitation
scope
right
sole
case
considered
mental
competence
together
godinez
supra
presents
question
closer
issue
case
focused
upon
criminal
defendant
asked
state
trial
permit
represent
change
pleas
guilty
guilty
state
trial
found
defendant
met
dusky
mental
competence
standard
knowingly
intelligently
waived
right
assistance
counsel
freely
voluntarily
chose
plead
guilty
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
state
trial
consequently
granted
defendant
requests
see
federal
appeals
however
vacated
defendant
guilty
pleas
ground
constitution
required
trial
ask
question
namely
whether
defendant
competent
waive
constitutional
right
counsel
see
competence
make
latter
decision
appeals
said
required
defendant
satisfy
higher
mental
competency
standard
standard
set
forth
dusky
see
dusky
general
standard
sought
determine
whether
defendant
represented
counsel
competent
stand
trial
whether
competent
waive
right
counsel
reversing
appeals
reject
ed
notion
competence
plead
guilty
waive
right
counsel
must
measured
standard
higher
even
different
dusky
standard
decision
plead
guilty
said
complicated
sum
total
decisions
represented
defendant
may
called
upon
make
course
trial
ibid
hence
reason
believe
decision
waive
counsel
requires
appreciably
higher
level
mental
functioning
decision
waive
constitutional
rights
even
assuming
might
pose
special
difficulties
competence
required
defendant
seeking
waive
right
counsel
competence
waive
right
competence
represent
ibid
emphasis
original
reason
concluded
defendant
legal
knowledge
relevant
determination
quoting
faretta
supra
concede
godinez
bears
certain
similarities
present
case
involve
mental
competence
involve
defendant
wants
represent
involve
mental
condition
falls
gray
area
dusky
minimal
constitutional
requirement
measures
defendant
ability
stand
trial
somewhat
higher
standard
measures
mental
fitness
another
legal
purpose
nonetheless
conclude
godinez
answer
question
us
part
appeals
higher
standard
issue
godinez
differs
critical
way
higher
standard
issue
godinez
higher
standard
sought
measure
defendant
ability
proceed
enter
guilty
plea
higher
standard
seeks
measure
defendant
ability
conduct
trial
proceedings
put
matter
specifically
godinez
defendant
sought
change
pleas
guilty
seek
conduct
trial
proceedings
ability
conduct
defense
trial
expressly
issue
thus
emphasized
godinez
needed
consider
defendant
competence
waive
right
emphasis
original
emphasized
need
consider
defendant
technical
legal
knowledge
proceed
trial
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
found
holding
consistent
earlier
statement
massey
moore
ne
might
insane
sense
incapable
standing
trial
yet
lack
capacity
stand
trial
without
benefit
counsel
see
godinez
supra
quoting
massey
noting
dealt
question
quite
different
question
presented
godinez
case
matters
consider
godinez
directly
us
another
thing
godinez
involved
state
sought
permit
defendant
represent
godinez
constitutional
holding
state
may
holding
simply
tell
state
whether
may
deny
defendant
right
represent
matter
issue
one
might
argue
godinez
grant
state
permission
allow
defendant
must
implicitly
include
permission
deny
cf
free
adopt
competency
standards
elaborate
dusky
formulation
yet
one
forcefully
argue
godinez
simply
consider
whether
constitution
requires
defendants
even
circumstances
state
seeks
disallow
question
upshot
view
question
us
open
one
iii
turn
question
presented
assume
criminal
defendant
sufficient
mental
competence
stand
trial
defendant
meets
dusky
standard
defendant
insists
representing
trial
ask
whether
constitution
permits
state
limit
defendant
right
insisting
upon
representation
counsel
trial
ground
defendant
lacks
mental
capacity
conduct
trial
defense
unless
represented
several
considerations
taken
together
lead
us
conclude
answer
question
yes
first
precedent
answering
question
points
slightly
direction
affirmative
answer
godinez
said
simply
leaves
question
open
mental
competency
cases
set
forth
standard
focuses
directly
upon
defendant
present
ability
consult
lawyer
dusky
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
capacity
consult
counsel
ability
assist
counsel
preparing
defense
drope
see
ibid
long
accepted
person
whose
mental
condition
lacks
capacity
understand
nature
object
proceedings
consult
counsel
assist
preparing
defense
may
subjected
trial
emphasis
added
standards
assume
representation
counsel
emphasize
importance
counsel
thus
suggest
though
hold
instance
defendant
choose
forgo
counsel
trial
presents
different
set
circumstances
view
calls
different
standard
time
faretta
foundational
case
rested
conclusion
part
upon
state
law
set
forth
cases
consistent
least
two
expressly
adopt
competency
limitation
right
see
citing
decisions
two
secondary
sources
see
cappetta
state
app
rev
grounds
cited
faretta
supra
assuring
mentally
competent
defendant
right
conduct
defense
provided
unusual
circumstances
exist
mental
derangement
depriv
defendant
fair
trial
allowed
conduct
defense
noting
whether
unusual
circumstances
evident
matter
resting
sound
discretion
granted
trial
judge
allen
commonwealth
mass
noting
assignment
counsel
necessary
special
circumstance
criminal
defendant
mentally
defective
second
nature
problem
us
cautions
use
single
mental
competency
standard
deciding
whether
defendant
represented
counsel
proceed
trial
whether
defendant
goes
trial
must
permitted
represent
mental
illness
unitary
concept
varies
degree
vary
time
interferes
individual
functioning
different
times
different
ways
history
case
set
forth
part
supra
illustrates
complexity
problem
certain
instances
individual
may
well
able
satisfy
dusky
mental
competence
standard
able
work
counsel
trial
yet
time
may
unable
carry
basic
tasks
needed
present
defense
without
help
counsel
see
poythress
bonnie
monahan
otto
hoge
adjudicative
competence
macarthur
studies
within
domain
adjudicative
competence
competence
assist
counsel
decisional
competence
data
indicate
understanding
reasoning
appreciation
charges
defendant
separable
somewhat
independent
aspects
functional
legal
ability
see
also
mckaskle
describing
trial
tasks
including
organization
defense
making
motions
arguing
points
law
participating
voir
dire
questioning
witnesses
addressing
jury
american
psychiatric
association
apa
tells
us
without
dispute
amicus
brief
filed
support
neither
party
isorganized
thinking
deficits
sustaining
attention
concentration
impaired
expressive
abilities
anxiety
common
symptoms
severe
mental
illnesses
impair
defendant
ability
play
significantly
expanded
role
required
even
play
lesser
role
represented
defendant
brief
apa
et
al
amici
curiae
motions
documents
defendant
prepared
case
one
include
appendix
infra
suggest
layperson
common
sense
general
conclusion
third
view
right
trial
affirm
dignity
defendant
lacks
mental
capacity
conduct
defense
without
assistance
counsel
mckaskle
supra
dignity
autonomy
individual
underlie
right
contrary
given
defendant
uncertain
mental
state
spectacle
well
result
trial
least
likely
prove
humiliating
ennobling
moreover
insofar
defendant
lack
capacity
threatens
improper
conviction
sentence
exceptional
context
undercuts
basic
constitution
criminal
law
objectives
providing
fair
trial
justice
brennan
put
constitution
protect
none
us
prevented
courts
acting
preserve
processes
constitution
prescribes
allen
concurring
opinion
see
martinez
even
trial
level
government
interest
ensuring
integrity
efficiency
trial
times
outweighs
defendant
interest
acting
lawyer
see
also
sell
government
concomitant
constitutionally
essential
interest
assuring
defendant
trial
fair
one
proceedings
must
fair
must
appear
fair
observe
wheat
amicus
brief
reports
one
psychiatrist
reaction
observed
patient
patient
satisfied
dusky
try
conduct
defense
ow
world
legal
system
allow
insane
man
defend
brief
ohio
et
al
amici
curiae
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
massey
trial
fair
leaves
defense
man
insane
unaided
counsel
reason
mental
condition
stands
helpless
alone
application
dusky
basic
mental
competence
standard
help
part
avoid
result
given
different
capacities
needed
proceed
trial
without
counsel
little
reason
believe
dusky
alone
sufficient
time
trial
judge
particularly
one
trial
judge
case
presided
one
edwards
competency
hearings
two
trials
often
prove
best
able
make
mental
capacity
decisions
tailored
individualized
circumstances
particular
defendant
consequently
conclude
constitution
permits
judges
take
realistic
account
particular
defendant
mental
capacities
asking
whether
defendant
seeks
conduct
defense
trial
mentally
competent
say
constitution
permits
insist
upon
representation
counsel
competent
enough
stand
trial
dusky
still
suffer
severe
mental
illness
point
competent
conduct
trial
proceedings
iv
indiana
also
asked
us
adopt
measure
defendant
ability
conduct
trial
specific
standard
deny
criminal
defendant
right
represent
trial
defendant
communicate
coherently
jury
brief
petitioner
emphasis
deleted
sufficiently
uncertain
however
particular
standard
work
practice
refrain
endorsing
federal
constitutional
standard
need
adopt
indiana
also
asked
us
overrule
faretta
decline
recognize
judges
sometimes
expressed
concern
faretta
contrary
intent
led
trials
unfair
see
martinez
supra
breyer
concurring
noting
practical
concerns
trial
judges
recent
empirical
research
suggests
instances
common
see
hashimoto
defending
right
empirical
look
pro
se
felony
defendant
rev
noting
small
number
defendants
chose
proceed
pro
se
roughly
total
state
felony
defendants
particular
appear
achieved
higher
felony
acquittal
rates
represented
counterparts
less
likely
convicted
felonies
time
instances
trial
fairness
doubt
may
well
concentrated
percent
cases
mental
competence
defendant
also
issue
see
percent
federal
pro
se
felony
defendants
ordered
undergo
competency
evaluations
today
opinion
assuring
trial
judges
authority
deal
appropriately
cases
latter
category
may
well
alleviate
fair
trial
concerns
reasons
judgment
indiana
vacated
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
appendix
excerpt
respondent
filing
entitled
version
instant
offense
attached
presentence
investigation
report
appointed
motion
permissive
intervention
filed
therein
superior
caused
stay
action
apon
expiration
thereafter
three
years
plan
establish
youth
program
coordination
aspects
law
enforcement
prevent
reduce
crime
amoung
young
people
indiana
became
diplomatic
act
safe
streets
act
omnibuc
considerate
agent
membered
clients
within
public
others
courts
actions
showcased
causes
costs
stay
trial
rule
derivative
property
knowledged
events
unexpended
contract
membered
clients
commission
finding
facilitie
plan
project
become
organization
administrative
recommendations
conditioned
governors
alterations
omitted
indiana
petitioner
ahmad
edwards
writ
certiorari
indiana
june
justice
scalia
justice
thomas
joins
dissenting
constitution
guarantees
defendant
knowingly
voluntarily
waives
right
counsel
right
proceed
pro
se
trial
faretta
california
mentally
ill
defendant
knowingly
voluntarily
elects
proceed
pro
se
instead
counsel
receives
fair
trial
comports
fourteenth
amendment
godinez
moran
today
concludes
state
may
nonetheless
strip
mentally
ill
defendant
right
represent
fairer
view
constitution
permit
state
substitute
perception
fairness
defendant
right
make
case
jury
specific
right
long
understood
essential
fair
trial
ahmad
edwards
suffers
schizophrenia
illness
manifested
different
ways
time
depending
whether
edwards
treated
well
factors
appear
harder
identify
years
years
edwards
apparently
treated
antipsychotic
medications
drugs
commonly
prescribed
illness
edwards
repeatedly
declared
incompetent
stand
trial
even
period
however
mental
state
seems
fluctuated
instance
one
psychiatrist
march
described
edwards
competency
report
free
psychosis
depression
mania
confusion
alert
oriented
appropriate
apparently
able
think
clearly
apparently
psychiatrically
normal
app
edwards
seems
treated
antipsychotic
medication
first
time
found
competent
stand
trial
year
psychiatrist
making
recommendation
described
edwards
thought
processes
coherent
wrote
communicate
well
speech
easy
understand
displayed
good
communications
skills
cooperative
attitude
average
intelligence
good
cognitive
functioning
appraise
roles
participants
courtroom
proceedings
capacity
challenge
prosecution
witnesses
realistically
testify
relevantly
report
robert
sena
course
became
two
separate
criminal
trials
edwards
sought
act
lawyer
filed
number
incoherent
written
pleadings
judge
places
emphasis
also
filed
several
intelligible
pleadings
motion
dismiss
counsel
motion
dismiss
charges
indiana
speedy
trial
provision
motion
seeking
trial
transcript
edwards
made
arguments
courtroom
coherent
written
pleadings
seeking
represent
first
trial
edwards
complained
detail
attorney
representing
spent
adequate
time
preparing
sharing
legal
materials
use
defense
trial
judge
concluded
edwards
knowingly
voluntarily
waived
right
counsel
proceeded
quiz
edwards
matters
state
law
edwards
correctly
answered
questions
meaning
voir
dire
operated
described
basic
framework
admitting
videotape
evidence
trial
though
unable
answer
questions
including
questions
topics
covered
state
evidentiary
rules
judge
identified
number
persisted
request
represent
judge
denied
request
edwards
acknowledged
need
continuance
represented
counsel
convicted
criminal
recklessness
theft
jury
deadlocked
charges
attempted
murder
battery
second
trial
edwards
asked
judge
allowed
proceed
pro
se
explained
attorney
disagreed
defense
present
attempted
murder
charge
edwards
counsel
favored
lack
intent
kill
edwards
defendant
put
objection
attorney
actually
discussed
defense
think
prosecution
mentioned
disagreement
defense
defense
like
represent
present
judge
rejected
edwards
request
proceed
pro
se
time
justification
edwards
sought
continuance
dispute
edwards
knowingly
intelligently
waived
right
counsel
stated
going
carve
third
exception
right
without
explaining
precisely
abilities
edwards
lacked
stated
edwards
competent
stand
trial
going
find
competent
defend
edwards
sought
request
counsel
raising
objection
open
address
judge
matter
judge
refused
stating
issue
already
decided
edwards
attorney
pursued
defense
attorney
judged
best
lack
intent
edwards
convicted
attempted
murder
battery
indiana
held
entitled
new
trial
denied
right
represent
state
indiana
sought
certiorari
granted
ii
constitution
guarantees
every
criminal
defendant
right
proceed
without
counsel
voluntarily
intelligently
elects
faretta
right
reflects
nearly
universal
conviction
part
people
well
courts
forcing
lawyer
upon
unwilling
defendant
contrary
basic
right
defend
truly
wants
faretta
discussion
history
right
includes
observation
long
history
british
criminal
jurisprudence
one
tribunal
ever
adopted
practice
forcing
counsel
upon
unwilling
defendant
criminal
proceeding
tribunal
star
chamber
faretta
described
right
proceed
pro
se
premise
sixth
amendment
confers
tools
defense
accused
describes
role
attorney
one
assistance
right
also
seen
part
traditional
meaning
due
process
clause
see
martinez
appeal
fourth
appellate
scalia
concurring
judgment
whichever
provision
provides
source
means
state
simply
may
force
lawyer
upon
criminal
defendant
wishes
conduct
defense
faretta
exercising
right
requires
waiving
right
counsel
defendant
may
represent
waives
lawyer
assistance
guaranteed
sixth
amendment
must
made
aware
dangers
disadvantages
record
must
establish
knows
choice
made
eyes
open
ibid
quoting
adams
ex
rel
mccann
limitation
may
relevant
many
mentally
ill
defendants
dispute
edwards
one
edwards
warned
extensively
risks
proceeding
pro
se
trial
judge
found
edwards
knowingly
voluntarily
waived
right
counsel
first
trial
app
second
trial
judge
denied
right
represent
carv
ing
new
exception
right
beyond
standard
knowing
voluntary
waiver
defendant
appreciates
risks
forgoing
counsel
chooses
voluntarily
constitution
protects
ability
present
defense
even
harms
case
fact
waiving
counsel
usually
mckaskle
wiggins
see
also
faretta
nonetheless
said
defendant
choice
must
honored
respect
individual
lifeblood
law
ibid
constitution
requires
state
case
subject
rigorous
adversarial
testing
possible
permits
defendant
eliminate
adversarial
testing
pleading
guilty
constitution
requires
defendant
given
right
challenge
state
case
using
arguments
sees
fit
godinez
held
due
process
clause
posed
barrier
permitting
defendant
suffered
mental
illness
waive
right
counsel
plead
guilty
long
competent
stand
trial
knowingly
voluntarily
waived
trial
counsel
right
never
rule
common
law
defendant
competent
stand
trial
yet
incompetent
either
exercise
give
rights
provided
defense
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
rejected
invitation
craft
higher
competency
standard
waiving
counsel
standing
trial
proposal
said
built
flawed
premise
defendant
competence
represent
relevant
measure
competence
required
defendant
seeking
waive
right
counsel
competence
waive
right
competence
represent
grounded
faretta
candid
acknowledgment
sixth
amendment
protected
defendant
right
conduct
defense
disadvantage
correct
case
presents
variation
godinez
presents
question
whether
another
constitutional
requirement
godinez
proposed
higher
degree
competence
required
waiver
limits
defendant
constitutional
right
elect
whether
state
view
fairness
values
permits
strip
defendant
right
makes
question
us
easier
one
one
constitutional
requirement
must
yield
another
case
conflict
nothing
permits
state
view
fair
deny
constitutional
protection
although
purpose
rights
set
forth
sixth
amendment
ensure
fair
trial
follow
rights
disregarded
long
trial
whole
fair
thus
although
confrontation
clause
aims
produce
fairness
ensuring
reliability
testimony
may
provide
unconfronted
testimony
used
trial
long
reliable
crawford
washington
rejected
approach
individual
liberties
right
purposes
eliminates
right
supra
quoting
maryland
craig
scalia
dissenting
today
right
accorded
respect
constitutional
guarantees
circumstance
permitted
state
deprive
defendant
trial
right
one
allowed
state
deny
rights
necessary
enable
trial
proceed
orderly
fashion
overriding
necessity
said
justifies
forfeiture
even
sixth
amendment
right
present
trial
threatened
removal
defendant
insists
conducting
manner
disorderly
disruptive
disrespectful
trial
carried
courtroom
illinois
allen
pro
se
defendant
may
abuse
dignity
courtroom
may
fail
comply
relevant
rules
procedural
substantive
law
may
terminate
defendant
deliberately
engages
serious
obstructionist
misconduct
faretta
supra
ground
terminating
unavailable
however
edwards
even
allowed
begin
represent
respectful
compliant
provide
basis
conclude
trial
gone
forward
allowed
press
claims
beyond
circumstance
never
constrained
ability
defendant
retain
actual
control
case
chooses
present
jury
termed
core
faretta
right
wiggins
supra
thus
faretta
recognized
right
bar
appointing
standby
counsel
explained
wiggins
pro
se
defendant
must
allowed
control
organization
content
defense
make
motions
argue
points
law
participate
voir
dire
question
witnesses
address
jury
appropriate
points
trial
furthermore
multiple
voices
confuse
message
defendant
wishes
convey
standby
attorney
participation
barred
destroy
jury
perception
defendant
representing
explained
adopt
approach
right
squarely
rejected
rights
allowing
courts
disregard
right
serves
purposes
right
intended
adopt
approach
remain
dissent
believe
assessment
purposes
right
inaccurate
boot
little
doubt
preserving
individual
refers
ante
paramount
among
purposes
equally
little
doubt
loss
dignity
right
designed
prevent
defendant
making
fool
presenting
amateurish
even
incoherent
defense
rather
dignity
issue
human
dignity
master
one
fate
rather
ward
state
dignity
individual
choice
faretta
explained
sixth
amendment
counsel
clause
invoked
impair
exercise
defendant
free
dispense
right
quoting
adams
whatever
else
may
said
wrote
bill
rights
surely
doubt
understood
inestimable
worth
free
choice
nine
years
later
wrote
wiggins
right
served
dignity
autonomy
accused
explained
uncertain
terms
meant
according
every
defendant
right
say
particular
said
individual
dignity
autonomy
barred
standby
counsel
participating
manner
destroy
jury
perception
defendant
representing
meant
pro
se
defendant
entitled
preserve
actual
control
case
chooses
present
jury
sum
honor
particular
conception
dignity
underlies
right
respect
autonomy
individual
honoring
choices
knowingly
voluntarily
made
purpose
finds
advanced
denial
right
purpose
assuring
trials
appear
fair
observe
ante
knowledge
never
denied
defendant
right
simply
ground
make
trial
appear
less
fair
outside
observers
inaugurate
principle
apply
deny
defendant
right
represent
knowingly
voluntarily
waives
counsel
edwards
stood
say
defense
like
represent
present
judge
app
seems
epitome
actual
apparent
unfairness
judge
say
heard
desire
proceed
denied
request
attorney
speak
iii
may
permits
state
deprive
mentally
ill
defendants
historic
component
fair
trial
suspicious
constitutional
footing
right
right
explicitly
set
forth
text
sixth
amendment
members
expressed
skepticism
faretta
holding
see
martinez
supra
questioning
relevance
historical
evidence
underlying
faretta
holding
breyer
concurring
noting
judges
closer
firing
line
sometimes
expressed
dismay
practical
consequences
right
sixth
amendment
makes
mention
right
forgo
counsel
provides
defendant
lawyer
right
call
witnesses
defense
confront
witnesses
counsel
permitted
assist
defence
emphasis
added
trial
system
however
allows
attorney
representing
defendant
full
authority
manage
conduct
trial
authority
without
adversary
process
function
effectively
taylor
illinois
see
also
florida
nixon
held
client
must
accept
consequences
lawyer
decision
forgo
decide
put
certain
witnesses
stand
decide
disclose
identity
certain
witnesses
advance
trial
taylor
supra
thus
order
defendant
right
call
witnesses
witnesses
put
defense
anything
tenuous
unacceptable
legal
fiction
defendant
must
consented
representation
counsel
faretta
supra
otherwise
defense
presented
defense
guaranteed
constitution
real
sense
defense
ibid
facts
case
illustrate
point
utmost
clarity
edwards
wished
take
case
jury
counsel
preferred
defense
focused
lack
intent
denied
right
conduct
defense
edwards
convicted
without
opportunity
present
jury
grounds
believed
supported
innocence
doubt
likely
convicted
anyway
hold
defendant
may
deprived
right
make
legal
arguments
acquittal
simply
agent
made
different
arguments
behalf
justice
frankfurter
wrote
adams
supra
imprison
man
privileges
call
constitution
singling
mentally
ill
defendants
treatment
opinion
even
questionable
virtue
politically
correct
time
society
trying
mainstream
mentally
impaired
permits
deprived
basic
constitutional
right
good
today
holding
extraordinarily
vague
accept
indiana
position
denied
defendant
communicate
coherently
jury
ante
even
hold
edwards
properly
denied
right
represent
holds
lack
mental
competence
circumstances
form
basis
denying
right
proceed
pro
se
ante
presumably
give
meaning
holding
future
indeterminacy
makes
bad
holding
worse
right
mentally
ill
sometime
thing
trial
judges
every
incentive
make
lives
easier
avoid
painful
necessity
deciphering
occasional
pleadings
sort
contained
appendix
today
opinion
appointing
knowledgeable
literate
counsel
think
defendant
competent
stand
trial
capable
knowing
voluntary
waiver
assistance
counsel
constitutional
right
conduct
defense
respectfully
dissent