|
"You can rest assured that your letter will receive the attention it fully deserves."
(As it executes a gentle parabola towards the bin.)
Survive In Prison Or Jail - A How To Jail Guide Speeding Ticket Secrets! Insider Tips, Tricks And Strategies!
Surviving Martial Law!
How To Survive The Coming Food Crisis!
Crisis By Design!
What 300 Million Americans Need To Know!
Join The Movement To Impeach Barack Obama!
Easy Naturalization: Easy And Fast Way To Become A US Citizen!
How To Win Child Custody!
Divorce Strategies And Tactics!
Focused Interviewing System Of Interview And Interrogation!
Legal Forms, Contracts And Agreements!
Dealing With False Restraining Orders. |
A motion under Faretta– must be "unequivocal."
Held: “We hold that while a defendant may invoke his or her self-representation rights after a denial of a motion to substitute counsel, the invocation must be unequivocal.
Unequivocal
And that is Princeton, not Harvard Law.
ENTER THE ATTORNEYS:
"This is a confusing and fuzzy area of law."
A defendant can place conditions on self-representation and still make an unequivocal demand: e.g., “If I do not get new counsel, I want to represent myself.” Id.
But, if the defendant states, “If I am appointed standby counsel, I would like to represent myself,” then he has made an equivocal demand and Faretta isn’t triggered. Id. (?!?) {As intuitive as “conditions precedent” in Property law.} The absurdity of this area of law is that these are usually indigent, uneducated clients who are struggling to speak to the court – often through a translator.
Deciding Faretta on phrase placement by an inarticulate defendant is, essentially, a quiet way of avoiding the train wreck of self-representation: not a bad thing from a corporate policy perspective in a commercial business, but a tough rule to understand.
How to Use: Those who represent indigent defendants in federal court will wince in recognition at the Mendez-Sanchez fact pattern. In addition to its primary holding on Faretta invocation, the decision also has an interesting and lengthy discussion on the frequently-misunderstood (by clients) “right” to new counsel.
1. the timeliness of the motion,
2. the adequacy of the court’s inquiry, and
3. whether the conflict was so great “as to result in a complete break-down in communication and consequent inability to present a defense.”
Id. at *4.
|
 |
