Pro se

1
Pro se
Student Name
Professor Name
Course Number
Date
2
Pro se is when a defendant decides to proceed without counsel. The sixth amendment
of the United States allows a defendant to voluntarily and intelligently defend himself
without counsel in a state criminal trial. Faretta vs. California appealed to protect himself, but
he did not intelligently waive his right to appeal when asked to question himself. Although he
was mentally sane, the court affirmed that Faretta had no constitutional right to represent
himself. The defendants need to know the dangers and consequences of prose before they
decide to voluntarily and intelligently defend themselves (Morris & Frierson,2008). The right
of prose can lead to procedural confusion without benefiting the defendant, so Faretta was
denied his right to represent himself in the California court. Godinez vs. Moran ruling was
crucial because it offered insight that if a defendant can stand trial as a competent candidate,
they are qualified to plead guilty and can waive a right to pro se. If a defendant chooses pro
se and his mental examination confirms he is stable, then he is in a position to plead guilty.
Still, the chances that later he can challenge the ruling by going against the psychiatric result
can be considered irrelevant such as in this case.
In the case of Edwards vs. Indiana, the critical lesson is that the law does not forbid a
defendant from using pro se, but if they are mentally incompetent, they can not stand
trial(Appelbaum, 2008). Edward had a severe mental illness that rendered him incapable. The
United States allows the defendant to go prose if they meet the minimum criteria of being
mentally sane. He can communicate coherently without any underlying psychological, mental
illness. The defendant should affirm dignity a mental capacity to defend himself without
needing any assistance from an attorney. The nature of mental illness also is another criterion
used because the nature can vary over time, like in the case of Faretta. To provide a fair trial,
the defendant should be able to prove the best good tuned mental capacity decisions.
3
References
Appelbaum, P. S. (2008). Law & Psychiatry:” A Fool for a Client?” Mental Illness and the
Right of Self-Representation. Psychiatric Services, 59(10), 1096-1098.
Morris, D. R., & Frierson, R. L. (2008). Pro se competence in the aftermath of Indiana v.
Edwards. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 36(4),
551-557.
…