Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Fair Criminal Trials
One of the cornerstones of criminal defense rights is the right to a fair trial. Defendants generally have the option to represent themselves in court to face criminal charges, although it is often said that a person who acts as their own lawyer has a fool for a client. When facing criminal charges, and especially serious criminal charges, it is important to have adequate representation by a criminal defense lawyer who knows the ropes.
Despite all of the pitfalls involved with self-representation in court, some defendants disregard all good advice and decide to go it alone anyway. This has previously been a right that anyone is entitled to, no matter how foolish.
Now the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of criminal defendants who wish to represent themselves. The Supreme Court has ruled that although a criminal defendant may be found competent to stand trial, if they suffer from a mental illness, they may not be fit to represent themselves in court. The court found that states may deny mentally ill defendants the right to represent themselves and require that they be represented by a lawyer in court without violating the U.S. Constitution.
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the government's interest in giving the defendant a fair trial during criminal proceedings outweighs the rights of a criminal defendant that wishes to act as their own lawyer in court. The decision clears the way for trial judges to make case-by-case determinations as to a defendant's mental ability and whether or not a fair trial can be achieved by allowing them to act as their own criminal defense lawyers. Because of the ruling, individual states may now also construct guidelines to prevent mentally ill defendants from representing themselves to ensure that they receive a fair trial.
The case that the Supreme Court considered involved Ahmad Edwards, according to a Reuters news report. In 2005 Edwards was convicted of murder and other charges in connection with a 1999 shooting outside a department store in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Edwards is mentally ill and suffers from schizophrenia and delusions. During most of the five years following the shootings, he was housed in state psychiatric facilities. However, by 2005, he was found by psychiatrists and the judge to be competent to stand trial, understand the charges against him and was deemed able to consult with his criminal defense lawyer.
The judge denied Edwards' request to act as his own lawyer during the trial. He was represented by a criminal defense lawyer, found guilty of the charges against him and sentenced to 30 years behind bars.
Edwards appealed on the grounds that his constitutional rights had been violated when the judge refused to allow him to represent himself. The Indiana courts agreed that his constitutional rights were violated and the conviction was overturned and a new trial was ordered. However, the Supreme Court has now set aside the Indiana courts' ruling and his criminal conviction and sentence will stand.
