Indiana v. Edwards (Supreme Court, 2008): The Supreme Court determined the ability for a defendant to represent himself and conduct his own trial is a different standard than being competent to stand trial. The Court may determine a defendant is competent to stand trial, however incompetent regarding their ability to represent themselves; thereby “forcing” the defendant to accept representation (Typically referred to as “standby counsel”). The standard to represent oneself would be determined by the trial judge in each specific case. The case distinguished the standard by which a defendant is able to waive rights and end trial proceedings and the ability to conduct trial proceedings on their own (Pro Se/Per). The Dusky Standard hinges on the premise a defendant is able to “Consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” however if there is no attorney to consult the standard changes. The right to represent oneself at trial is qualified by the trial Court’s interest in preserving courtroom decorum, promoting the orderly presentation of evidence, questioning of witnesses, and the advancement of legal arguments. For the Court it was “Common Sense” a defendant’s mental illness may impair their ability to accomplish those tasks, the Court concluded, “A right self-representation at trial will not affirm the dignity of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel”. Furthermore, “No trial can be fair that leaves the defense to a man who is insane, unaided by counsel, and who by reason of his mental condition stands hopeless and alone before the court.” For these reasons, the Constitution allows trial courts to “Take realistic account of the particular defendant’s mental capacities by asking whether a defendant who seeks to conduct his own defense at trial is mentally competent to do so.” See also McKaskle v. Wiggins; Faretta v. California.
Forensic & Psychological Assessments