self representation defense

The Right to Represent Yourself In Court (Without a Lawyer)

While the Bill of Rights protects many of the rights granted to us by the Creator…

There are many rights which are not mentioned , or protected directly by the Constitution.

Rights such as the right to be heard , and the right to travel, have long been recognized by courts in the US.

One of those often overlooked rights , is the right to represent oneself in court. Without a lawyer.

Today lets look at the history of how this right is recognized by US law. And what that may mean for you.

Why the Right to Self-representation Matters

Like all of our rights, the right to act as ourselves in the court room is constantly under fire . And the biggest reason our rights are in peril is that we don’t exercise them regularly.

Here’s the deal, there simply aren’t any lobbying groups looking out for the interest of individuals to represent themselves in court. As a result, we need to be aware of our rights and when necessary use them.

While hiring a legal professional can certainly help you in court, the bottom line is. Lawyers are expensive . And the court system is slow. Often the only way to bring an issue to trial without a 3rd mortgage is to represent yourself in court .

While it may not be your first option, when working with a public defender is the only thing you can afford. It may be best to do-it-yourself. Besides financial reasons, many decide to present themselves in court without counsel, because they have a religious or ideological defense. This is simply something most lawyers won’t or can’t perform.

The American History of Self-representation

American courts have secured the right to represent oneself in court since the beginning of the nation.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 and U.S.C.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 recognized the right to personally present oneself in court without a lawyer. In 1948, this right was reaffirmed under U.S.C. § 1654 which reads:

“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”

Common Law On Self-Representation

Countless court decisions reaffirm this right in the common law. Here are just a few.

US Supreme Court Cases reaffirming the right to self-representation:

• Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824)
• Haines v. Kerner (1972)
• Faretta v. California (1975)

1. Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824)

While the case itself is not directly related to the rights of an individual to represent themselves in court. The language in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court on the case, shows that the right to appear in court as oneself was a well known right.

“Natural persons may appear in Court, either by themselves, or by their attorney. But no man has a right to appear as the attorney of another, without the authority of that other. In ordinary cases, the authority must be produced, because there is, in the nature of things, no prima facie evidence that one man is in fact the attorney of another.” -Chief Justice Marshall, Osborn v. Bank of the United States

2. Haines v. Kerner (1972)

In 1972, Kerner, a prisoner who was suffering from a health condition due to being in solitary confinement. Sued the state of Illinois to change his cell arrangements. Stating that his rights to due process were violated , and that the state had violated the 8th his amendment right which protects him from cruel and unusual punishment.

The State moved to dismiss Kerner’s case, because they claimed Kerner had failed to state a cause of action. The judge dismissed the case without allowing Kerner to submit any evidence , and provide evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that Kerner indeed had a right to present his evidence before the case could be dismissed.

3. Faretta v. California (1975)

Faretta v. California is one of the most cited cases in regards to pro se litigation.

I’ll keep it short , the state of California forced Faretta to retain a public Defender. The case went before the Us Supreme Court decided that Faretta indeed has the right to defend himself. Without a lawyer.

In which Justice Stewart delivered his lengthy opinion on how deeply embedded the right to self-representation is. Stating that the right is implied by the 6th amendment to the Bill of Rights.

“The Sixth Amendment does not provide merely that a defense shall be made for the accused; it grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense. It is the accused, not counsel, who must be “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,” who must be “confronted with the witnesses against him,” and who must be accorded “compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” Although not stated in the Amendment in so many words, the right to self-representation—to make one’s own defense personally—is thus necessarily implied by the structure of the Amendment . The right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails.” -Mr. Justice Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice

The Rules of Judicial Conduct Recognize this Right

Further, the Rules of Judicial Conduct published by the American Bar Association reaffirm this right as well.

Rule 2.6 Enduring the Right to Be Heard , reminds judges to uphold the right to be heard. Either by oneself or with a lawyer.

“(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.*

(B) A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute but shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement.

ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.6 “A judge shall accord [all]… the right to be heard…””

The Right of Self-Representation is Under Attack

The right to appear in one’s own defense is under a constant assault. Think about it, lawyers go to school for 8 years or more to join he Bar and serve as attorneys. So many of them have disdain for individuals, with no formal training, come into a courtroom and do the same job they do.

In fact, in 2017 Judge Richard Posner retired early from his judicial career. The reason? He though the court “wasn’t treating the pro se litigant fairly” and generally wanted nothing to do with pro se litigants . And many judges and even attorneys have recognized this same issue.

However, this isn’t really a new issue . The issue is perhaps as old as the courtroom itself. One of the most famous “pro se litigants” was Yeshua Hamashiach himself.

During his trial Yeshua spoke these words:

“Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge : ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” – Yeshua Hamashiach , Luke 11:52

Your Right to Defend Yourself

The right to defend oneself goes beyond the right of self-defense from physical harm . The right to defend yourself applies to all actions against you by sword, or by word.

Defending yourself by pen and paper in court is an age old right granted to us through natural law . While the right will not be going anywhere, the practice of that right and the acknowledgment of it existence are at stake.

Whether you plan to represent yourself in court or not, it is important that we work to preserve this right for others, and future generations. As unconventional as it may seem to some , sometimes the only way to secure our liberty is through unconventional means.

If you learned something, be sure to share this article, and while you are at it, sign up for our newsletter. We would love to keep in touch!

• The Growing Challenge of Pro Se Litigation by: Stephan Landsman
• The Rules of Judicial Conduct by the ABA
• Empirical Patterns of Pro se Litigation in Federal District Courts by Mitchell Levy
• Current Events
• Driving and Traffic Law
• History of Laws
• Legal Information
• Infographics
• Police Interactions
• Our Mission

Covid-19 Law Tracker!

No products in the cart.

Examining the Sixth Amendment Right to Self-Representation

On July 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in United States v. Lee , decided Daniel T. Lee’s Sixth Amendment claim under Faretta v. California , a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a criminal defendant’s right to represent herself. In Lee , the defendant, after filing a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence (through an attorney), moved to be allowed to discharge his attorney, waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and proceed pro se (i.e., representing himself). The magistrate judge who ultimately conducted the suppression hearing ordered that the hearing proceed with the defendant represented by counsel. At the conclusion of that hearing, the magistrate judge recommended to the district judge that the motion to suppress be denied and that the defendant be permitted to represent himself at trial, and the district judge accepted both recommendations.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that Lee suffered a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at his suppression motion and ruled that it would be inappropriate to apply harmless error analysis to the violation. In this column, I will consider the Seventh Circuit’s decision and examine more broadly why it might be valuable to have a right to self-representation (a right the exercise of which generally hinders, rather than helps, a criminal defendant’s case).

Self-Representation and Harmless Error Analysis

In Faretta , the U.S. Supreme Court announced that competent defendants have a Sixth Amendment entitlement to discharge counsel and represent themselves during criminal proceedings. This right was controversial, as Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun each filed dissents (both of which the other and Justice Rehnquist joined). But the contrary view prevailed.

We began this discussion with Lee’s case, which considered the defendant’s claims that he was entitled to represent himself at his suppression hearing and that the denial of that right should not be subject to harmless error analysis. Harmless error is a conclusion that courts are authorized to draw about many of the (inevitable) errors that judges make in presiding over criminal matters, where the error can often be said to have had no effect on the outcome of the proceeding. When there has been harmless error, the verdict or other outcome remains in place, while a finding of reversible error yields a reversal and perhaps the opportunity to repeat the trial or other proceeding without the error in question.

A finding of harmless error in a case involving a constitutional violation requires that the prosecutor prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not affect the outcome. Once the prosecutor meets that burden, even an egregious constitutional violation may not lead to a reversal and retrial. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Arizona v. Fulminante that when a judge, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, admits a defendant’s coerced confession into evidence at his trial, that error could, in theory, be harmless if the prosecutor were able to satisfy the burden of proving that the outcome would have been the same had the confession been properly excluded.

Some errors, however, are always reversible and not subject to harmless error analysis at all. One example occurs when the judge gives a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction in a criminal case. Such an error, under Sullivan v. Louisiana , is not subject to harmless error analysis. Another example is the denial of counsel. Such errors are structural and call into question the fairness and legitimacy of the entire proceeding in a way that cannot be readily severed from the rest of the process to determine their particular impact.

A denial of the right to self-representation is similar to these other errors in that having an (unwanted) attorney representing the defendant fundamentally alters the entire proceeding rather than constituting a discrete error subject to conceptual severance from the rest of the (legitimately conducted) process. In one respect, however, a denial of the right to self-representation is quite different from the other types of automatically reversible error: being represented by counsel almost always reduces the odds of conviction relative to self-representation. That is, unlike other structural errors, it would be most accurate to describe the denial of Faretta rights as likely to be harmless (in the sense of posing no increased risk of conviction) and perhaps best characterized as “helpful error.” As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in McKaskle v. Wiggins , then, “[s]ince the right of self-representation is a right that, when exercised, usually increases the likelihood of a trial outcome unfavorable to the defendant, its denial is not amenable to ‘harmless error’ analysis,” an explanation aptly quoted by the Seventh Circuit in Lee .

In Lee’s case, because he did have the opportunity to represent himself at trial, the Seventh Circuit ruled that he was entitled not to a new trial but to a new suppression hearing, where he would be able to argue to the district court in favor of suppressing the evidence that his attorney unsuccessfully challenged at his first suppression motion. If Lee fails (as the court plainly expects him to do), then he will have to live with the conviction. As the court said in Lee , “[a]llowed to do that [to redo his suppression motion, this time representing himself], he obtains everything to which he’s entitled.”

Does This Right Make Sense?

The court of appeals’ analysis is sound. Lee was denied his right of self-representation at the suppression motion, and the proper remedy for this type of error is to allow Lee to redo the motion on his own. But a perhaps more basic question may arise out of this Faretta case, namely, should a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to act in a way that increases the odds of his being found guilty?

“No” might be the correct answer to this question. In the words of Justice Blackmun, dissenting in Faretta , “[i]f there is any truth to the old proverb that ‘one who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,’ the Court by its opinion today now bestows a constitutional right on one to make a fool of himself.” A primary objective of the criminal justice system is to ensure that innocent people are acquitted of crimes that they did not in fact commit. Allowing a defendant (who might be innocent) to represent herself seriously compromises this central objective. In Chief Justice Burger’s words in his Faretta dissent, “Both [judge and prosecutor] are charged with the duty of insuring that justice, in the broadest sense of that term, is achieved in every criminal trial. That goal is ill-served, and the integrity of and public confidence in the system are undermined, when an easy conviction is obtained due to the defendant’s ill-advised decision to waive counsel.”

And a misguided defendant who believes—without foundation—that she can do a good job of representing herself in a courtroom should perhaps be protected from her foolishness rather than permitted to indulge it. Again from Chief Justice Burger’s dissent: “The system of criminal justice should not be available as an instrument of self-destruction.”

For those who believe that Faretta was correctly decided, however, a different answer is possible. That answer has to do with an individual’s interest in autonomy. As the majority in Faretta pointed out ominously, “[i]n the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber,” an institution that operated in the late 16 th and early 17 th centuries and that “has for centuries symbolized disregard of basic individual rights.”

To be sure, most instances of autonomy to harm oneself in the context of a criminal proceeding do not find expression in constitutional rights. And even in Faretta , the majority acknowledged that, as the Supreme Court held in Singer v. United States , “[t]he ability to waive a constitutional right does not ordinarily carry with it the right to insist upon the opposite.”

An arrested suspect has an autonomy interest in confessing her crimes to the police and may waive the Miranda right to remain silent in custody, but that interest in confessing to the police is not protected by a constitutional right. The suspect may waive her right to remain silent, and a knowing and voluntary waiver will stand as a bar against her subsequent claims of constitutional right, but there is no right to confess. If police refuse to listen to her confession, she is simply out of luck (at least along this rather narrow autonomy dimension) and cannot later be heard to complain in court that her rights were violated.

So what makes the right to self-representation different, if it is different? Many criminal defendants do not have the benefit of representation by their first choice of attorney. If they are poor (or simply lack the means to hire the particular person they want), then then they will have to “settle” for someone with whom they might not see eye to eye and who does not appear to the defendants to authentically speak on their behalf.

When this happens, defendants may feel a sense of alienation in the courtroom, being unable to speak for themselves while simultaneously having the person designated to speak for them not doing so to their satisfaction. When a defendant is so dissatisfied as to prefer to speak for herself than to be represented by the person assigned (or available) to speak for her, then insisting that she nonetheless endure the undesired representation is tantamount to silencing her at her own criminal proceeding. In the language of the Faretta Court, “although he may conduct his own defense ultimately to his own detriment, his choice must be honored out of ‘that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law.’”

My earlier reference to silencing the defendant is no accident, because the defendant enjoys another right the exercise of which can prove (at least some of the time) to be very damaging to her case: the right to testify on her own behalf. In Rock v. Arkansas , the Supreme Court held that, as a matter of Due Process, Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process, and a necessary corollary to the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination, a criminal defendant has the right to testify on her own behalf. If the defendant wishes to take the witness stand, even against the firm advice of her attorney, she is entitled to do so.

It may be clear in some cases that the defendant can only hurt herself by testifying (because prior convictions will make a horrible impression on the jury, or because she is a terrible witness who will wilt under cross-examination). Yet she may nonetheless insist on taking the stand and speaking to the jury about what happened.

The Faretta right takes this logic one step further. As a matter of autonomy, a person who stands accused of a crime is entitled to be heard. One way in which she may be heard is by testifying, if she so chooses, and she may do so no matter how dire the likely consequences. Another way in which a defendant may be heard is by presenting her case in court. Indeed, when courts and attorneys refer to arguments made by a lawyer during trial, they usually say that “the defendant/appellant/petitioner” made an argument instead of saying that “the lawyer” made an argument. This is because the lawyer, in an important sense, merges with her client, and what the lawyer says or decides is generally binding on the client.

Accordingly, if the client is uncomfortable with the representation and agency of her attorney and would prefer to go without representation—and represent herself—rather than continue with that attorney, a deep respect for the right to speak and respond to criminal charges demands that we accede to that request, however foolhardy. And as the majority observed in Faretta , “it is not inconceivable that in some rare instances, the defendant might in fact present his case more effectively by conducting his own defense. Personal liberties are not rooted in the law of averages.”

One way of thinking about the autonomy right here is to analogize it to the right to refuse medical treatment. Doctors might deem a medical treatment to be beneficial, and society might consider the right to receive that treatment, if it is desired, to be of paramount importance. Yet the person who chooses not to receive the treatment, if he is competent to understand the choice that he is making, is entitled to make that choice. This is true no matter how “foolish” the election, when viewed exclusively through a cost/benefit lens. In some cases, of course, the patient may turn out to have been wiser than his doctors.

Regardless of its wisdom, the purest expression of autonomy may be manifest precisely when its exercise defies a cost/benefit analysis. If so, then—like the right to refuse life-saving treatment—the right to speak on one’s own behalf, whether as a witness or as one’s own counsel, may rightfully belong with the individual whose life or liberty is actually at stake, and that individual is the criminal defendant herself.

Posted in: Constitutional Law , Criminal Procedure

Tags: Legal

One response to “Examining the Sixth Amendment Right to Self-Representation”

As a defendant who has clashed w/ his appointed counsel on trial strategy, I know what it’s like to wince and cringe as your lawyer says things on your behalf that you disagree with. It got to the point that I wanted to take the stand so I could finally explain the whole thing to the jury. My lawyer says to me “OK do you want to have your day in court or do you want a verdict of not guilty?” Taking the stand would’ve probably been a mistake. But if I’d acted as my own lawyer from start to finish and made the arguments I wanted to make, then I think the jury would’ve reached the same verdict as they did (not guilty). I also know what its like to be overwhelmed and intimidated enough to want to take the prosecutions deferred sentence deal and to have my appointed counsel say “ah c’mon, let’s go to trial we can win this.” and then to be awed by my lawyer’s cerebral discussion of the then recent “Crawford v. Washington’ SCOTUS decision and the intellectual back&forth that went on between my lawyer, the professorial judge and (to a lesser extent, the trainee prosecutor). A lawyer’s knowledge and skill is of great value to a defendant. A lawyer’s arrogance can also leave his client feeling as though he is unrepresented.

by Sherry F. Colb

Appelman Law Firm - Minneapolis DWI Attorney

Call Now for a FREE   Consultation:

The pros and cons of representing yourself in a criminal case in minnesota.

by Avery Appelman

If you need to defend yourself in court, you can choose to do it yourself. However, before you do, let’s review the pros and cons of representing yourself in a criminal case in Minnesota.

The Potential Benefits of Self-Representation

Here’s a look at some of the potential benefits to representing yourself in court.

Cost Savings – One significant advantage of representing yourself in a criminal case in Minnesota is the substantial cost savings it can offer. Legal proceedings can be financially draining; hiring an attorney involves hefty fees. By choosing self-representation, you can avoid these expenses, which can benefit individuals with limited financial resources. Instead of paying for legal counsel, you can allocate those funds elsewhere, such as covering court fees or other essential costs related to your case. However, it’s important to note that while cost savings are appealing, they must be weighed against the potential risks and complexities of handling your legal matters. Making an informed decision requires careful consideration of your specific situation’s financial aspects and intricacies!

Control And Autonomy – Another compelling reason individuals opt for self-representation in Minnesota criminal cases is the heightened sense of control and autonomy it offers. When you represent yourself, you can make critical decisions about your case. You can choose your defense strategy, negotiate with prosecutors, and present your arguments as you see fit. This level of control can be empowering and align with your interests and values. Furthermore, representing yourself can help protect your privacy since you’re not required to disclose sensitive information to a third party, such as an attorney. You maintain full authority over your case, which can be particularly appealing when safeguarding your personal and legal matters. However, it’s crucial to remember that with this control also comes responsibility, as you’ll need to thoroughly research, prepare, and execute your legal strategies effectively.

Learning Experience – Engaging in self-representation in a Minnesota criminal case can offer an invaluable learning experience. By taking on the legal aspects of your case personally, you immerse yourself in a hands-on educational opportunity. You gain insights into the complexities of the legal system, understand court procedures, and become familiar with relevant laws. This knowledge enhances your legal acumen and empowers you to make informed decisions about your defense strategy. The learning experience extends beyond the courtroom as you develop critical research, analytical, and problem-solving skills. This newfound expertise can be applied to various aspects of your life, potentially serving you well. However, it’s essential to approach this learning curve with caution, as mistakes can have significant consequences in criminal cases. Balancing the pursuit of knowledge with the complexities of legal proceedings is key to a successful self-representation journey!

Personalized Approach – A noteworthy advantage of representing yourself is the ability to craft a personalized approach. Unlike relying on an attorney with multiple cases, self-representation allows you to tailor your defense strategy to your circumstances. You have an intimate understanding of your case’s details, and this firsthand knowledge can be invaluable, whether it’s gathering evidence, selecting witnesses, or presenting arguments. As such, you have full control over each aspect, ensuring that your strategy aligns precisely with your needs and priorities. This personalized approach can also lead to a more direct and authentic representation of your case in court. After all, you are the one articulating your story. However, it’s essential to balance this advantage with the responsibility it entails.

You Work Only With Yourself – The final compelling aspect of representing yourself in a criminal case in Minnesota is avoiding potential conflicts of interest. When you choose self-representation, you eliminate the need for a third party with their interests. Thus, you ensure that your case focuses solely on your objectives. That minimizes the possibility of conflicting priorities between you and attorneys, allowing you to maintain control over your legal decisions. Moreover, you won’t have to worry about attorney-client privilege or confidentiality concerns. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that self-representation demands a deep understanding of the legal system. So, while it offers the advantage of avoiding conflicts of interest, it also places the onus on you.

The Pitfalls of Representing Yourself in a Criminal Case

Conversely, here’s a look at some of the potential pitfalls of representing yourself in court.

Legal Complexity – Navigating the legal complexities of a Minnesota criminal case can be daunting for those representing themselves. The intricacies of criminal law can be intricate and ever-changing, making it challenging to grasp the nuances of the legal system. You’ll need to stay current with laws , regulations, and recent court rulings, adding another layer of complexity to your responsibilities. Legal procedures, rules of evidence, and courtroom protocols can also be intricate and perplexing. You may grapple with unfamiliar terminology and procedural hurdles without a legal expert. So, you would need to stress staying current on laws and rulings to ensure your defense remains effective. 

Lack Of Expertise – One notable drawback of representing yourself in a criminal case is the lack of legal expertise. Legal matters can be highly complex. And without a legal professional’s guidance, you may struggle to navigate the intricacies of the legal system effectively. You benefit from their experience and in-depth understanding of criminal law when working with a reliable lawyer . Thus, you ensure your case is approached with expertise and precision. Without this guidance, you may encounter challenges in understanding legal terminology, procedures, and the rules of evidence, compromising your defense. The absence of legal expertise makes it challenging to anticipate and counter the prosecution’s arguments, leaving you at a disadvantage. 

Limited Resources – Limited resources can pose a significant challenge when representing yourself in a Minnesota criminal case. Unlike legal professionals with access to comprehensive legal databases, tools, and resources, your research capabilities might be restricted. This limitation can affect your ability to gather crucial information, such as precedents and case law, essential for building a robust defense. Additionally, without access to expert legal research tools, you may struggle to stay updated on relevant legal developments, potentially hindering your ability to craft an effective strategy. Furthermore, due to resource constraints, self-represented individuals might encounter difficulties securing expert witnesses or obtaining essential evidence. 

Emotional Toll – The emotional toll of representing yourself in a Minnesota criminal case can be substantial. Legal proceedings are inherently stressful, and self-representation intensifies this emotional burden. The responsibility of preparing and presenting your defense, coupled with the uncertainty of the outcome, can lead to anxiety and mental strain. Moreover, the emotional toll can affect decision-making, potentially impacting the quality of your defense strategy. Cross-examination, handling evidence, and facing opposing counsel in court can be emotionally taxing. The fear of severe penalties or incarceration adds further pressure. So, to mitigate this emotional toll, it’s essential to seek emotional support from friends, family, or counselors and to practice self-care throughout the legal process. 

Risk Of Significant Penalties – Representing yourself in a Minnesota criminal case carries the risk of facing harsh penalties. Without the expertise of a qualified attorney, you may inadvertently make mistakes or fail to navigate the legal system effectively. These errors can result in unfavorable outcomes, including more severe punishments. That includes longer prison sentences, hefty fines, or a criminal record that can have lasting consequences. 

While there are pros and cons to self-representation, if the stakes are anything other than a simple fine, it’s likely in your best interest to move forward with a lawyer. For legal help in the great Twin Cities area, reach out to Avery and the team at Appelman Law Firm today at (952) 224-2277.

Author Bio :

Meet Jasper Knox, a legal expert at bestcrosscountrymovers.com . With a passion for the law, Jasper has dedicated his career to advocating for clients’ rights. Beyond the legal realm, Jasper enjoys crafting informative content on cross-country moving, making complex logistics seem simple. His writing showcases his commitment to clarity and helping individuals navigate interstate relocations smoothly.

Contact a Minnesota Defense Lawyer

Minnesota Service Area

Appelman Law Firm represents clients charged with DWI, prostitution, traffic, drug, and other criminal offenses in the following Minnesota counties and cities: St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, Edina, Bloomington, Shakopee, Brooklyn Center, Coon Rapids, Eden Prairie, Eagan, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Hastings, Plymouth, Robbinsdale, Eagan, St. Paul, Hennepin, Anoka, Carver, Blue Earth, Ramsey, Isanti, and McLeod County.

See more  Minnesota Service Areas.

Disclaimer:

The information contained on this site is intended to provide only general education. It should NOT be regarded as specific legal advice to anyone. Individuals should always consult a licensed and qualified lawyer regarding their specific situation.

Can I represent myself in a criminal case?

Please leave this field empty.

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Phone (required)

State (required)

Zip (required)

How would you like to be contacted? (required)

Email Phone

Brief description of your legal issue (required)

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Privacy Policy I have read the disclaimer. * (required)

Facing a criminal charge can be a daunting and life-altering experience. Whether you’re accused of a sex crime, a federal offense, or any other criminal act, one of the crucial decisions you’ll need to make is whether to hire a sex crimes defense lawyer , a federal criminal defense attorney, or attempt to represent yourself. This decision is not to be taken lightly, as it can significantly impact the outcome of your case. In this comprehensive guide, we will explore the feasibility, advantages, and disadvantages of representing yourself in a criminal case, especially considering the importance of having a 24-hour criminal attorney by your side.

The Right to Self-Representation

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to legal representation for criminal defendants. In the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court held that if a defendant cannot afford an attorney, one must be provided for them. However, this amendment also includes the right to self-representation, commonly known as “pro se” representation.

Pro se representation allows an individual to act as their own attorney in a criminal case. While this is a constitutionally protected right, it is important to understand the complexities and potential pitfalls of representing yourself in such a high-stakes legal matter.

Understanding the Legal System

One of the key challenges of representing yourself in a criminal case is understanding the legal system and its intricacies. Legal proceedings are governed by complex rules, procedures, and statutes that can be difficult to navigate without legal training. A sex crimes defense lawyer or a federal criminal defense attorney typically has years of education and experience in criminal law, which can be a substantial advantage.

For instance, a sex crimes defense lawyer will have specialized knowledge of the laws, regulations, and defenses related to sexual offenses. Similarly, a federal criminal defense attorney will be well-versed in federal law and procedures. Attempting to represent yourself in such cases may put you at a significant disadvantage, as you may not fully understand the nuances and potential legal defenses available to you.

Legal Expertise and Advocacy

One of the primary benefits of hiring a criminal defense attorney is their legal expertise and advocacy skills. A skilled attorney can thoroughly investigate the evidence against you, identify legal issues, and develop a strategic defense strategy. They can also negotiate with prosecutors to potentially reduce charges or secure a favorable plea deal.

In contrast, representing yourself may limit your ability to effectively advocate for your rights. Without a deep understanding of criminal law, you may struggle to identify legal issues that could lead to your case being dismissed or weakened. Additionally, you may face challenges in presenting evidence, cross-examining witnesses, and making persuasive legal arguments in court.

Complex Legal Procedures

Criminal cases involve a series of complex legal procedures, from pre-trial motions and discovery to trial preparation and post-trial appeals. These procedures can be overwhelming for individuals without legal training. A 24-hour criminal attorney can guide you through each step of the process, ensuring that your rights are protected and that you follow proper legal procedures.

For example, a sex crimes defense lawyer can help you understand the requirements for sex offender registration, which vary by state and can have lifelong consequences. Similarly, a federal criminal defense attorney can navigate the intricate federal court system, which has its own set of rules and procedures.

Legal Resources and Research

One of the significant advantages of having an attorney is access to extensive legal resources and research tools. Attorneys have access to legal databases, libraries, and professional networks that allow them to research case law, statutes, and legal precedents relevant to your case. This research is crucial for building a strong defense strategy.

Attempting to conduct legal research and prepare a defense strategy without the assistance of a trained attorney can be a daunting task. It can be time-consuming, and there is a risk of missing critical legal arguments or precedents that could benefit your case. In contrast, a criminal defense attorney can efficiently gather and apply legal research to your advantage.

Emotional and Psychological Impact

Being charged with a criminal offense, whether it’s a sex crime or a federal offense, can take a significant toll on your emotional and psychological well-being. It is a highly stressful and anxiety-inducing experience that can cloud your judgment and decision-making abilities. Representing yourself may exacerbate these emotional challenges, as you’ll be responsible for every aspect of your defense.

A criminal defense attorney can provide valuable emotional support and guidance throughout the legal process. They can help you make rational decisions, provide reassurance, and alleviate some of the emotional burden associated with your case. This emotional support can be especially crucial in cases involving sex crimes, which are often stigmatized and emotionally charged.

Negotiating with Prosecutors

In many criminal cases, negotiation with prosecutors is a key element of the defense strategy. Prosecutors may be open to plea bargains or reduced charges in exchange for guilty pleas. Negotiating with prosecutors requires skill and experience in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your case and assessing the potential outcomes of a trial.

A 24-hour criminal attorney is well-equipped to engage in negotiations with prosecutors on your behalf. They can leverage their knowledge of the legal system and their relationships with opposing counsel to secure the best possible outcome for your case. Attempting to negotiate with prosecutors as a pro se defendant may put you at a disadvantage, as you may not have the same level of bargaining power or insight into the prosecution’s strategy.

Courtroom Experience

Representing yourself in court can be an intimidating and challenging experience, especially if you have little to no courtroom experience. Courtroom proceedings involve strict adherence to rules of evidence, courtroom decorum, and legal procedures. A criminal defense attorney is familiar with these aspects of courtroom practice and can navigate them effectively.

A sex crimes defense lawyer or a federal criminal defense attorney is particularly valuable when it comes to cross-examining witnesses, making objections, and presenting compelling arguments to the judge and jury. Their courtroom experience can be a significant asset in ensuring a fair trial and protecting your rights.

Legal Ethics and Professionalism

Attorneys are bound by strict codes of legal ethics and professionalism. They have a duty to zealously advocate for their clients while adhering to ethical standards. This means that they must maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and act in the best interests of their clients at all times.

Representing yourself can present ethical challenges, as you may not fully understand your obligations and responsibilities under the law. Making legal missteps or ethical violations can have serious consequences for your case. Having a criminal defense attorney by your side ensures that your rights are protected and that you receive ethical and professional representation throughout the legal process.

Potential Cost Savings

One of the reasons some individuals choose to represent themselves is the potential cost savings. Hiring an attorney can be expensive, and legal fees can add up quickly. Pro se representation may seem like a more affordable option, especially if you believe you have a straightforward case.

However, it’s essential to consider the long-term financial implications of representing yourself. If you make legal mistakes or fail to secure a favorable outcome, the consequences could be financially devastating. In some cases, investing in an experienced criminal defense attorney can be a cost-effective decision in the long run, as they may be able to achieve a more favorable result or even get your case dismissed.

Limitations of Pro Se Representation

While the right to self-representation is constitutionally protected, it is essential to recognize the limitations and potential drawbacks of representing yourself in a criminal case. These limitations can have significant implications for the outcome of your case:

Lack of Legal Expertise: Without legal training and experience, you may not fully understand the complexities of criminal law, which can lead to critical errors in your defense strategy.

Inadequate Legal Resources: Access to legal research tools and resources is limited for pro se defendants, making it challenging to build a strong defense.

Emotional Stress: The emotional toll of a criminal case can be overwhelming, and representing yourself can add to the stress and anxiety.

Legal Procedures: Navigating the legal system can be challenging without legal guidance, increasing the risk of procedural errors.

Limited Negotiation Skills: Effective negotiation with prosecutors requires skill and experience, which may be lacking in pro se representation.

Courtroom Inexperience: Lack of courtroom experience can put you at a disadvantage during trial proceedings.

Ethical and Legal Pitfalls: Pro se defendants may unintentionally violate legal ethics or make legal missteps that harm their case.

When to Consider Pro Se Representation

While representing yourself in a criminal case is generally not advisable, there are some situations where it may be a viable option:

Minor Offenses: For minor offenses with minimal consequences, such as traffic violations or small claims court cases, pro se representation may be appropriate.

Simple Cases: In cases where the facts are straightforward, and the legal issues are not complex, you may consider representing yourself.

Limited Resources: If you genuinely cannot afford an attorney and do not qualify for a court-appointed lawyer, pro se representation may be your only option.

Legal Assistance: Some individuals choose to represent themselves with the help of legal self-help resources, clinics, or assistance from paralegals, although this is not a substitute for an experienced attorney.

Legal Knowledge: If you have a background in law or have previously worked in a legal capacity, you may have a better understanding of the legal system and procedures.

In the realm of criminal law, whether you are facing charges related to sex crimes, federal offenses, or other criminal acts, the decision to represent yourself is a significant one. While the right to self-representation is protected by the Constitution, it is crucial to weigh the advantages and disadvantages carefully.

In many cases, the complexities of criminal law, legal procedures, and the potential consequences of a conviction make it highly advisable to seek the assistance of a skilled criminal defense attorney. A sex crimes defense lawyer or a federal criminal defense attorney can provide the legal expertise, advocacy, and emotional support needed to navigate the legal system effectively.

Pro se representation may be suitable for minor offenses or straightforward cases, but it carries inherent risks, including legal mistakes and unfavorable outcomes. It is essential to make an informed decision based on the specific circumstances of your case, your legal knowledge, and your financial resources.

Ultimately, the choice of whether to represent yourself in a criminal case should not be taken lightly. Consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney can help you assess your options and make an informed decision that is in your best interests. Whether you choose to retain legal counsel or proceed pro se, it is essential to ensure that your rights are protected and that you receive a fair and just outcome in your criminal case.

• Criminal Defense Attorney Vancouver WA
• Attorney Vancouver WA
• Drug Crimes Attorney Vancouver WA
• DUI Attorney Vancouver WA
• Federal Crimes Attorney Vancouver WA
• Sex Crime Attorney Vancouver WA
• Violent Crimes Attorney Vancouver WA

Aggressive Criminal Defense

Call us 24/7, 404-551-5684, for a free consultation, open, honest and, experienced representation.

drug charges

Are you facing a drug-related charge? You need Michael Bixon representing your rights.

driving under influence

Are you facing a DUI charge? You need Michael Bixon representing your rights.

criminal law

Are you facing a Criminal Law charge? You need Michael Bixon representing your rights.

PRO SE DEFENDANTS: FARETTA & THE RIGHT TO SELF-REPRESENTATION

Bixon, --> 4th july 2019   uncategorized -->   none.

It’s been said once, twice and many times over: “One who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.” However, no matter what the old adage says, every American citizen not only has the right to be represented by counsel, but also has the right to represent himself or herself in court. Otherwise, known as a  Pro Se  defendant. 

THE SIXTH AMENDMENT

Under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” The right to counsel applies in both federal and state cases. The absence of counsel, in most cases, does affect the basic fairness of a trial. However, while as Americans we enjoy the right to counsel, we also enjoy the right to intelligently and knowingly waive our right to counsel as illustrated in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case,  Faretta v. California. 

FARETTA v. CALIFORNIA

Anthony Faretta was charged with grand theft auto in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. Before Faretta’s trial began, he requested to represent himself. Initially, the judge in the case entered a preliminary ruling and granted Faretta’s request. Later, however, the judge called Faretta back into Court to inquire about Faretta’s ability to represent himself. The judge questioned him about his knowledge of the hearsay rule and other court procedures. After questioning him, the judge determined that Faretta’s answers were inadequate and that he had not made an intelligent decision to waive counsel. Further, the judge ruled that Faretta had no constitutional right to his own defense. The judge rescinded his previous decision and appointed a public defender to represent Faretta. In addition, the judge denied all of Faretta’s motions to be co-counsel. Faretta was convicted and, on appeal, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court judge’s ruling that Faretta had no constitutional right to represent himself. The California Supreme Court denied review. 

The question in Faretta was “whether a defendant in a state criminal trial has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.” In other words, can a judge force a lawyer upon a defendant when the defendant wants to conduct his or her own defense.

Argued on November 19, 1974 and decided on June 30, 1975, the United States Supreme Court vacated the state court decision and remanded the case. The Court held that a defendant in a state criminal trial has the constitutional right to refuse appointed counsel and conduct the trial when he or she voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so. The Court concluded that Faretta was deprived of that constitutional right. His knowledge of the hearsay rule and court procedures was irrelevant to whether or not he voluntarily waived his right to counsel.  Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 (1975).

PRO SE: REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT

In Latin,  Pro Se  means “for oneself.” It is a legal status that simply means that a defendant has chosen to represent himself or herself in court without the help of a lawyer. As mentioned, as a U.S. citizen you are guaranteed under the Constitution the right to appointed counsel and the right to represent yourself. Although not viewed as the best idea, many people make the decision to represent themselves because of monetary limitations, the complexity of a case (i.e. the legal matter may be simple enough for a person to handle on his or her own) and some individuals mistakenly believe they can do a better job than an appointed attorney. For instance, one of the most famous (or infamous)  Pro Se  cases is that of Ted Bundy. 

Bundy, who had two years of law school, elected to proceed pro se at his trial. Later, on appeal, Bundy claimed “that the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry into whether he should have been allowed to represent himself during critical stages of the prosecution.”  Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). The trial court asked Bundy if he had other counsel to represent him. Bundy replied by stating that he would proceed pro se.

The trial court permitted Bundy to proceed pro se and asked Bundy what education he had. He replied in relevant part, “I have a Bachelor of Science in Psychology from the University of Washington and two years of law school. I think, however, if the Court will read Faretta, the United States Supreme Court has said that the legal background or legal training of a defendant who wishes to represent himself is not an issue. If the man or woman wishes to represent himself or herself, understandingly, knowingly and voluntarily expresses the desire to do so, he or she may exercise that Sixth Amendment right applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment and so I don’t really think that an inquiry into my background, beyond my stating that I knowingly and voluntarily and understandingly take this step, is necessary.”

On June 21, 1979, Bundy withdrew his waiver of counsel and accepted Victor Africano as his attorney in the Lake City case. Africano served as Bundy’s attorney from that pre-trial point to the conclusion of the direct appeal.”  Theodore Robert Bundy v. Richard L. Dugger , 850 F.2d 1402 (1988). 

FARETTA HEARINGS IN GEORGIA

As concluded in Faretta v. California , a defendant has the right to represent himself or herself at trial. However, before allowing self-representation, the Court must determine whether the defendant has made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel. The Court must provide sufficent information to the defendant in order to be satisfied that the defendant understands the consequences of proceeding without counsel. Iowa v. Tovar , 541 U.S. 77 (2004).

Further, a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel is required from both indigent defendants and those who can afford private counsel. “[T]he right to private counsel…in all criminal prosecutions—not merely those resulting in imprisonment or a fine…whether that right to counsel has been waived is an independent and separate inquiry from whether the right to court-appointed counsel exists.” Barnes , 275 Ga. 499, 570 SE2d 277 (2002). Moreover, a request for self-representation after the commencement of a trial does not have to be honored. Thomas. v. State , 300 Ga. App. 265 SE2d 391 (2009).

CONTACT BIXON LAW TODAY

Have you been arrested and charged with a crime in Georgia? If so, call Bixon Law today. You need an experienced Georgia criminal defense lawyer on your side who will defend your legal rights and vigorously advocate on your behalf to have your case dismissed or the charges against you reduced. As experienced trial attorneys, we are also not afraid to take your case to trial if necessary. We represent clients in Atlanta and throughout the state of Georgia. We are lawyers who are committed to helping people in difficult situations and we invite you to call us at  404-551-5684  for a free consultation today. 

Recent Posts

Charged with extortion, stinson pleas.

• Nolo Contendere or No Contest Pleas in Georgia
• Charged With Escape?
• Death Penalty in Georgia

Practice Area

• Misdemeanors
• Theft Crime
• Drug Crimes
• Sex Crimes Lawyer Atlanta
• Weapon Offenses
• White Collar Offenses Atlanta
• Violent Crimes Lawyer Atlanta

Practice Areas

About attorney michael bixon.

Michael Bixon is a life-long believer in making the best of any situation and looking forward to a bright future. He brings that same philosophy to his practice and focus in helping people facing insurmountable circumstances. For Michael, going out of his way for his clients, being available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and ensuring they receive just representation is the only way to operate his practice.

Extortion, a crime that lurks in the shadows of coercion and intimidation, has far-reaching implications that can turn an innocent exchange into a criminal offense. Defined under Georgia law as unlawfully obtaining prop...

Entering a Stinson plea is effectively a high stakes gamble.  When entering a Stinson plea, a Defendant admits guilt to actually secure a better outcome of the case.  Stinson pleas come about when a prosecu...

Nolo Contendere or No Contest Pleas in G...

A plea of nolo contendere doesn’t mean that the Defendant has chosen to plea innocent or guilty, but simply means that they don’t want to contest the allegations against them.  A nolo contender plea is a way to...

Breaking News

RELIST WATCH

A capital case that tests the right to represent oneself at trial.

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here .

We have two new cases to discuss this week — one unequivocal relist, and one kinda-sorta relist.

Like last week’s new addition , Shoop v. Cassano is a capital case. August Cassano was serving a life sentence for murder when he stabbed his cellmate, Walter Hardy, to death. Before his trial for murdering Hardy, Cassano filed a “waiver of counsel” along with a request for the appointment of counsel. Then, three days before trial, Cassano asked the trial court, “Is there any possibility I could represent myself?” The Ohio Supreme Court held that neither the waiver of counsel nor the question about self-representation constituted a proper invocation of the Sixth Amendment right of self-representation, noting that the Supreme Court has said that a defendant must “clearly and unequivocally declare[]” his intention to proceed pro se under Faretta v. California , and must do so in timely fashion. The court held that Cassano’s statements were not unequivocal invocations and Cassano’s question would have been untimely even if it had been clear and unequivocal. By a 2-to-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit granted habeas relief, holding that Cassano had properly invoked his right of self-representation and the Ohio Supreme Court had unreasonably applied U.S. Supreme Court precedent in concluding otherwise. Three judges dissented from the decision denying rehearing en banc. Judge Amul Thapar wrote that the 6th Circuit had been “corrected for similar errors before,” and “[u]nfortunately,” the court “need[ed] to be reminded again.”

The state of Ohio now asks the Supreme Court to summarily reverse the 6th Circuit’s decision. It also asks the court to clarify whether correcting a clearly erroneous panel decision is sufficiently important to warrant rehearing en banc. The court rescheduled this case eight times before relisting it.

Now on to the kinda-sorta relist. Because the court decided Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. and Shinn v. Ramirez on Monday, it released all the cases raising the same or similar issues that it had been holding for those cases. On each of those dockets, the penultimate entry reads, “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of [the date when the court voted to hold the case],” and the last entry notes it was distributed for this week’s conference.

One of those cases is International Energy Ventures Management, L.L.C. v. United Energy Group, Ltd. , which argues that there is a circuit split on whether factual findings are always reversible only upon a showing of clear error. The district court in that case found as a factual matter that United Energy Group did not suffer prejudice from International Energy Ventures Management’s failure to immediately press its right to arbitration. The court of appeals reversed. But rather than find the factual finding of no prejudice clearly erroneous, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 textually requires, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that because the district court’s no-prejudice finding was conclusory, the court of appeals “owe[d] no deference to such conclusory assertions.” International Energy Ventures Management sought Supreme Court review, arguing that there is a circuit split on whether appellate courts can reverse factual findings absent clear error. But it noted that the court was then considering in Morgan v. Sundance whether courts can adopt a rule conditioning waiver of the right to arbitrate on a showing of prejudice, and asked for the petition to be held for Morgan . The case was distributed for conference on May 19. Ordinarily, at that conference, the court would have voted to hold that case for Morgan . But the justices knew something people outside the court didn’t: Morgan would be released the following Monday, and it would hold that courts may not condition a waiver of the right to arbitrate on a showing of prejudice.

Ordinarily, I’d consider International Energy Ventures Management a released hold that because of a happenstance of timing looked like a relist, but I thought it worth flagging anyway, particularly because the petitioner is represented by the Dean of #AppellateTwitter . International Energy Ventures Management has submitted a supplemental brief arguing for five pages that the court should vacate the 5th Circuit’s decision and remand for further consideration in light of Morgan . Although they throw in a pro forma alternative request for plenary review on the asserted circuit split, it’s clear it’s gunning for vacatur and remand.

That’s all for this week. Until next time, stay safe !

New Relists

Shoop v. Cassano , 21-679 Issues : (1) Whether the Supreme Court should summarily reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s award of habeas relief; (2) whether, when a three-judge panel clearly errs in awarding habeas relief, its decision raises questions important enough to justify en banc review; and (3) whether Cassano clearly and timely requested self-representation. (rescheduled before the Mar. 4, Mar. 18, Mar. 25, April 1, April 14, April 22, April 29 and May 12 conferences; relisted after the May 19 conference)

International Energy Ventures Management, L.L.C. v. United Energy Group, Ltd. , 21-1028 Issue : Whether a reviewing court must strictly adhere to  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) ’s requirement that a district court’s fact-findings “must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st, 8th, 9th, and District of Columbia Circuits have held, or whether the appellate court may engage in its own review with less deference (or “no” deference, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held below) when the court of appeals decides the fact-findings are insufficient, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 11th Circuits have concluded. (kinda-sorta relisted after the May 19 conference)

Returning Relists

Andrus v. Texas , 21-6001 Issues : (1) Whether, on remand, the Texas court rejected the Supreme Court’s conclusions in  Andrus v. Texas , which were amply supported by the habeas and trial records, and whether the Texas court disregarded the Supreme Court’s express guidance for conducting a prejudice analysis pursuant to  Strickland v. Washington ; and (2) whether the Texas court’s failure to adhere to the Supreme Court’s decision conflicts with our constitutional system of vertical stare decisis and creates widespread confusion regarding the proper legal standard that courts must use in assessing whether the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel is violated in death-penalty cases. (rescheduled before the Jan. 14, Jan. 21, Feb. 18, Feb. 25, March 4, and March 18 conferences; relisted after the March 25, April 1, April 14, April 22, April 29, May 12 and May 19 conferences)

Cope v. Cogdill , 21-783 Issues : (1) Whether jail officials who are subjectively aware of a substantial risk that a pretrial detainee will attempt suicide and respond to the harm unreasonably may be held liable when their violation was obvious — as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 11th Circuits have held — or whether jail officials who respond unreasonably to the obvious risk should be granted qualified immunity in the absence of a case involving the same facts — as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held below; (2) whether the objective standard the Supreme Court announced in  Kingsley v. Hendrickson  applies to inadequate-care claims brought by pretrial detainees — as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 9th Circuits have held — or whether the subjective standard that applies to convicted prisoners also applies to pretrial detainees — as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th, 10th, and 11th Circuits have held and as the 5th Circuit held below; and (3) whether the judge-made qualified immunity doctrine requires reform. (relisted after the April 1, April 14, April 22, April 29, May 12 and May 19 conferences; record requested and received after the April 22 conference)

Grzegorczyk v. United States , 21-5967 Issue: Whether Zenon Grzegorczyk is entitled to relief on his claim that knowingly using a facility of interstate commerce with intent that a murder be committed, in violation of  18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) , is not a crime of violence under  18 U.S.C. § 924(c) . (relisted after the April 14, April 22, April 29, May 12 and May 19 conferences)

Thomas v. Lumpkin , 21-444 Issues : (1) Whether, under the Supreme Court’s clearly established precedent, Andre Thomas—an African American man who, during a schizophrenic episode, killed his estranged white wife, their son, and her daughter— was denied his constitutional right to be tried by an impartial jury, when three jurors at Thomas’s capital trial expressed opposition to people of different races marrying and having children—writing on their voir dire questionnaires that such relationships are “against God’s will,” that we should “stay with our Blood Line,” and that the children of interracial relationships are denied “a specific race to belong to”—and when the jurors never disclaimed those views or said they could set them aside to consider Thomas’s mental illness and make the individualized sentencing judgment required by the Constitution; and (2) whether Thomas was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, when defense counsel did not object to, or seek to strike, any of those three jurors, and failed to ask two of them a single question about their bias. (rescheduled before the Jan. 7, Jan. 14, Jan. 21, Feb. 18, Feb. 25, March 4, March 18, March 25, April 1, April 14, April 22 and April 29 conferences; relisted after the May 12 and May 19 conferences)

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Cases: Cope v. Cogdill , Grzegorczyk v. United States , Thomas v. Lumpkin , International Energy Ventures Management, L.L.C. v. United Energy Group, Ltd. , Shoop v. Cassano , Andrus v. Texas

Recommended Citation: John Elwood, A capital case that tests the right to represent oneself at trial , SCOTUSblog (May. 26, 2022, 11:45 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/a-capital-case-that-tests-the-right-to-represent-oneself-at-trial/

Privacy Overview

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

U.S. Supreme Court

Faretta v. California

No. 73-5772

Argued November 19, 1974

Decided June 30, 1975

422 U.S. 806

The Sixth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth guarantees that a defendant in a state criminal trial has an independent constitutional right of self-representation and that he may proceed to defend himself without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so, and, in this case, the state courts erred in forcing petitioner against his will to accept a state-appointed public defender and in denying his request to conduct his own defense. Pp. 422 U. S. 812 -836.

Vacated and remanded.

STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 422 U. S. 836 . BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 422 U. S. 846 .

Page 422 U. S. 807

• Opinions & Dissents

• Oral Arguments
• Copy Citation

Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

By using our website, you consent to the use of cookies and tracking technologies as outlined in our privacy policy.

What Are The Pros and Cons Of Representing Yourself In Court?

Defending yourself in court is uncommon in our legal system, but there are instances where it does occur. The majority of people represent themselves in court for a variety of reasons. In criminal trials, a defendant may not want to pay or cannot afford a private counsel, or they may consider that a public defender would not represent their best interests throughout the trial, or their trial may be straightforward, and they believe counsel is not needed.

There are also cases where a defendant might distrust the system and believes that deviating from the norm constitutes a declaration of resistance. Another major reason might be that a defendant is already in jail and may embrace the benefits of pursuing their own case, such as access to the library. 

One of the most important realizations to have if you want to represent yourself is that you will be viewed in the same respect as an experienced attorney and will be expected to comprehend the laws as well as abide by the good etiquette and decorum of the court.

Common Legal Terms

Laws and judicial systems have their own language, and if you don't understand even the most basic terminology, you may be lost and highly confused throughout a proceeding. Many of the most often used terminology in court originated from Latin. Such words as Habeas Corpus (That you have the body), Per Curiam (By the court), and Pro Se (On one’s own behalf). We've compiled a list of some of the most commonly used legal words to assist you in comprehending some of the terminology used during a trial. The following legal phrases are important to understand since they may come up in conversations with your lawyer, legal documents, or even current events.

Plea Bargain

In many cases, a case is handled outside of the courtroom and does not even go to trial. This occurs when both parties reach an agreement in a procedure known as a plea bargain. Parties agree to a plea bargain for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to the following: 

• By avoiding a trial, both parties save money and time.
• Avoiding the possibility of a victim in a case reliving the memories of a horrible crime
• The prosecution does not trust what the jury might rule on in a jury trial. 
• The defendant may be able to escape a heavier sentence.

The plea bargaining process is mostly confidential, and the specifics are only revealed to the public once it is announced in court. This can avoid the extensive attention that comes with trials, particularly those involving high-profile clients. 

However, there are times when the plea agreement is subject to court approval, and there are times when the judge may disregard the plea bargain and proceed to trial. 

Verdict 

When the jury makes a decision in a dispute, it is referred to as the verdict. During a criminal trial, the jury will either find the defendant guilty or not guilty. In a civil matter, the jury will rule in favor of the plaintiff or the defense. If the jury finds in favor of the plaintiff, the defense will be accountable for compensating the plaintiff for the resulting damages. 

After the jury has rendered its judgment, it is customary for either party's counsel to request that the jury be polled. During this procedure, each jury member will rise and be asked individually if they agree with the decision. Once the polling is finished, the court will accept the verdict and declare the trial over. 

Oral or written evidence delivered by a witness under oath, affidavit, or deposition during a trial or other legal proceedings is referred to as testimony . During the course of the proceedings, witnesses for the defense and the plaintiff will be called to the stand. The witness is under oath while on the stand, and whatever they say is considered testimony and truth. Suppose the opposing side demonstrates through evidence and cross-examination that a witness is lying during your testimony. In that situation, they can dispute the testimony, rendering it useless and riddled with flaws. 

A grand jury is made up of 16 to 23 members who hear evidence from the U.S. attorney, who serves as the prosecutor in federal criminal matters. The grand jury decides if there is "probable cause" to suspect the person committed a crime and should face prosecution. If the grand jury believes there is sufficient evidence, the defendant will be indicted.

In the United States, the grand jury serves as an investigating body and can meet for as long as a year if necessary. The grand jury's capacity to undertake its investigations is unrestricted. The grand jury may request that the court obtain further evidence, such as witness testimony and document subpoenas. Ultimately, the grand jury serves as a barrier between the government and the people.

Standard of Proof 

The Standard of Proof is defined by Merriam-Webster as the amount of certainty and degree of evidence required to establish proof in a criminal or civil action. Three of the most common standards for proof are Clear and Convincing Evidence, Beyond Reasonable Doubt, and Preponderance of Evidence.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt is a standard of proof that is more directed toward criminal cases. The beyond reasonable doubt standard mandates authorities to demonstrate, by evidence, that the accused defendant is the lone person accountable for the act.

In the majority of civil cases/lawsuits and administrative hearings, the Preponderance of Evidence standard asserts that a party must show its claim or position by a preponderance, which is defined as dominance in weight, force, importance, etc. In personal injury and breach of contract disputes, a preponderance of evidence means that a party has proven that its version of the facts, causes, damages, or responsibility is more likely than not correct. Unless otherwise specified by law, this requirement is the easiest to meet because it applies to all civil cases.

When the plaintiff fulfills the burden of proof by demonstrating that their allegations have a greater than 50% chance of being true, the preponderance of evidence standard is applied. If a claim can be proven to have a higher possibility of being true than untrue, the burden of proof is met. Additionally, civil law cases are often subject to the preponderance of evidence tests.

Lastly, the Clear and Convincing Evidence standard is developed from the Preponderance of Evidence standard and requires evidence to establish that the issue at hand is very probable. This standard applies to civil proceedings and may appear in some types of criminal trials. This standard can also be used to establish that the evidence search was voluntary.

Burden of Proof 

The plaintiff is the person that took the case to court; therefore, they will have the burden of proving their argument is justified. The burden of proof is frequently divided into two concepts: burden of production and burden of persuasion.

The burden of proof may include, but is not limited to, the following, depending on the jurisdiction in the United States:

• Beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law.
• In will disputes, there is clear and convincing proof of fraud.
• Probable cause for obtaining a warrant or making an arrest.
• Reasonable belief as part of establishing probable cause. 
• Reasonable suspicion in cases involving police stops and searches. 

In a legal system, the burden of proof is critical to the result of a case. The law requires determining who is in charge of presenting evidence that supports or refutes a claim. It also outlines how much proof is necessary to achieve that goal.

What Are Some Of The Challenges of Representing Yourself?

Lack Of Knowledge - Contrary to popular belief, viewing courtroom dramas can never provide someone with the legal understanding necessary to defend a case in court efficiently. Criminal defense attorneys study the law for years in law school and continue to refine their abilities in court throughout their careers. Attorneys are trained to be extensively versed in all court processes. What you see in law dramas is merely that, a drama. The fact that even lawyers facing criminal accusations retain the assistance of other lawyers to represent them in court should emphasize this point.

Lack Of Experience - In some cases, the self-represented defendant may be more knowledgeable about their case than anybody else. While this may be true, it does not imply that you should represent yourself. Knowing your case does not indicate that you understand how the legal system operates. In the vast majority of instances, the defendant will be up against a seasoned litigator who has tried numerous cases and fully knows the trial process. Defendants representing themselves will be at a significant disadvantage in comparison to the opposing counsel, not only in terms of knowing and comprehending the large quantity of legislation but also in terms of knowing and understanding the individuals in the court. Most experienced attorneys are acquainted with judges, clerks, and bailiffs. Knowing the individuals in these positions does not guarantee success in court. It will, however, greatly assist in knowing how individuals want things to flow, what they want to hear, what they don't want to hear, what buttons not to press, and what they are lenient on. This is particularly true when it comes to the judge. 

Clouded Judgment - When someone represents oneself, their judgment may be affected since they are solely concerned with themselves. For example, a defendant may ignore the evidence and fight with emotions, ultimately undermining the defense. This is why having a lawyer advocate their client's interests comes in handy because the lawyer will debate the evidence and facts of the case without bringing emotion into the equation. Furthermore, when you argue with your emotions, you may produce unneeded interruptions that upset the judge and court and eventually waste the time of the jury. 

Right To Self Representation

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that in all criminal proceedings, the accused has the right to a timely and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district in which the offense was committed. The Supreme Court concluded in the historic Faretta v. California case in 1975 that the sixth amendment implies an independent constitutional right of self-representation that a defendant may exercise. However, one of the requirements that were set in place was that the individual seeking to self-represent oneself must waive the right to counsel willingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. 

Even if you have the constitutional right to self-represent, it is never recommended. Self-representation is a risky and tough duty for someone who does not completely comprehend the intricate details of our legal system. That is why you must consult with an experienced attorney who will be able to assist you at every level of the trial. 

Sovereign Citizen

If you have watched the cases of defendants defending themselves, you may have heard someone refer to themselves as sovereign citizens. The FBI describes sovereign citizens as anti-government extremists who believe that, even though they live in the United States, they are independent or "sovereign" from the country. Furthermore, sovereign citizens believe that they are not only not required to respect the laws but that they are fully immune from them. Most employ conspiracy theories or false allegations to legitimize their status as sovereign citizens. 

The case of Darrell Brooks v. The State of Wisconsin is one of the most recent and well-watched trials in which the defendant claims sovereign citizen status. During the trial, Darrell Brooks heaved numerous accusations against the court and the judge's legal grounds for hearing this case, including questioning her oath of office or whether she had even taken the oath of office, requesting proof of subject matter jurisdiction , and claiming that there is no plaintiff in his case because a plaintiff must be a living and breathing human being, not an entity. 

Although many courts and jurisdictions recognize the term "sovereign citizen," it has no definite significance in our legal system. As in the Darrell Brooks case, Judge Durrow recognized the accusations, took notes, and proceeded with the trial. Even though the sovereign citizen movement has grown in popularity in our legal system, it never works because it lacks legal foundations. So claiming to be a sovereign citizen is not the greatest idea since it will not in any way benefit you in your trial. 

Why You Should Hire An Attorney

It is always a good idea to hire a lawyer whether you are representing yourself in civil court or representing yourself in criminal court. Court processes may be intimidating, time-consuming, and even confusing at times. Furthermore, if you are representing yourself, you might gravely jeopardize your case if you fail to file crucial documents on time or if you file the wrong document entirely. 

Having a lawyer on your side may help you gather evidence for your defense, exchange information through the discovery process, negotiate plea bargains, and settle a dispute before it goes to trial. Seasoned attorneys also have access to a large network of specialists who can comb through the material and uncover flaws that can help you and your attorney contest the evidence in your case. 

 Furthermore, without the necessary legal knowledge, you may be unable to discern if critical evidence against you was obtained unlawfully or whether a witness' testimony contradicts previous statements. And, at each point during the investigation, was the evidence handled appropriately by the crime lab? Your lawyer will be aware of these developments and may be able to have the evidence suppressed.

While it is lawful for anybody not to employ an attorney, each circumstance is unique, and court processes are quite fluid. In some cases, failing to hire an attorney can result in broken agreements, lost claims, or even prison time. That is why it is critical that you employ a seasoned and well-educated attorney to assist you in seeking the justice you deserve.

Find an Attorney

Read more legal news.

Key Deposition Preparation Tips for Lawyers and Witnesses

Success Strategies: Tips to Empower Individuals with Disabilities in Their Job Search

Events for Young Lawyers

Myra Hamilton, Esq. Honored with Prestigious 2024 Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award

The Importance of Expert Witnesses in Criminal Defense Trials

Legal Rights in the Workplace: Workplace Discrimination and Harassment

Challenges in Employment Law: Recent Trends and Cases

Empowering Legal Professionals: Exclusive Law Conferences

Understanding Miranda Rights: What Every Criminal Defense Attorney Should Know

Prenuptial Agreements: What You Need to Know Before Marriage

Workers' Compensation Claims: Know Your Rights and Options

Settlement Fund Payouts for Abuse at Youth Development Center in NH Reach $66M

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Right of self-representation in criminal proceedings faretta v california, additional details.

Dallas , TX 75222 , United States

No download available

Availability, related topics.

Choose Your Legal Category:

• Online Law Library
•   Bankruptcy Law
•   Business Law
•   Civil Law
•   Criminal Law
•   Employment Law
•   Family Law
•   Finance Law
•   Government Law
•   Immigration Law
•   Insurance Law
•   Intellectual Property Law
•   Personal Injury Law
•   Products & Services Law
•   Real Estate Law
•   Wills, Trusts & Estates Law
•   Attorney Referral Services
•   Top 10 Most Popular Articles
•   Legal Dictionary
• How It Works - Clients
• Legal Center
• About LegalMatch
• Consumer Satisfaction
• Editorial Policy
• Attorneys Market Your Law Practice Attorney Login Schedule a Demo Now Did LegalMatch Call You Recently? How It Works - Attorneys Attorney Resources Attorney Success Stories Attorney Success Story Videos Compare Legal Marketing Services Cases Heatmap View Cases
• Find a Lawyer
• Legal Topics
• Criminal Law

Representing Yourself

(This may not be the same place you live)

  What Is Self-Representation?

After being charged with a crime , the defendant will need to determine their court representation strategy. They must decide whether they will hire a private attorney, ask for a public defender, or represent themselves. When a criminal defendant chooses to represent themselves in court, this is referred to as a pro se representation. A pro se defendant researches and argues their own case in front of the judge and the jury.

However, most lawyers and judges would agree that pro se representation is not always the best decision for a defendant who is facing criminal charges. This is because most people lack the skill and experience necessary to put up the best defense. It is common that when a defendant has self-representation they will be convicted, while a lawyer could have helped them avoid a conviction or receive a reduced sentence.

However, the right to pro se representation is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the reality of the legal world is that self representation is often necessary. An example of this would be how it may be difficult for someone to justify paying for an attorney’s time in order to dispute a minor traffic violation. However, the more severe the offense and punishment, the more important it is that a defense lawyer is consulted.

Judges will treat pro se litigants the same way that judges treat attorneys. What this means is that if someone decides to undertake self-representation, the court will expect them to:

• Meet all deadlines;
• Attend all hearings;
• Fill out all proper forms;
• Follow the rules of court;
• Abide by the rules of evidence;
• Understand legal language; and
• Speak on their own behalf in a formal setting.

What Are The Advantages Of Representing Yourself?

What are the disadvantages of representing yourself, what else should i know about self representation, should i represent myself.

In many types of proceedings, the system is specifically designed to be accessible to non-lawyers. Examples include small claims court, traffic court, and certain administrative hearings. Not only would going pro se be a viable option, it is the only option, as some of these proceedings do not even allow representation by lawyers.

Some lawyers will represent you for free (or, pro bono) if you qualify as very low income. This is an option that you should always consider, as any lawyer can navigate the legal system far more efficiently than a layperson can.

If a defendant chooses to represent themselves, they must take the following steps:

• Tell the court that they wish to proceed with pro se representation;
• Establish competency to stand trial , as criminal defendants that lack competency cannot represent themselves pro se;
• File the appropriate court paperwork; and
• Meet all court deadlines and case requirements, as previously mentioned.

It is important to note that these requirements may vary between states, as well as specific courts. Additionally, some judges may allow or require a pro se defendant to work with a “standby attorney.” This provides a pro se defendant with a lawyer who is available to assist if they need help with procedure or arguments.

Many judges prefer this type of representation, because the defendant can assert their right to be pro se while still having traditional representation available. Some advantages of self representation include:

• Familiarity : The majority of criminal defendants who choose to self represent base their decision on an overall lack of trust in the judicial system. The defendants believe that they know their cases best, and as such are in the best position to provide the greatest defense;
• Reduced Costs: Another common reason for self representation is the cost associated with hiring an attorney, if the defendant does not want the court appointed attorney;
• Strategy Decisions: As they are self represented, the defendant solely determined their defense. This eliminates strategy disagreements between an attorney and client, as well as the defendant feeling pressured to proceed with their case in a specific way; and
• Legal Experience: If the defendant is an attorney themselves or has work experience in a legal setting, they may already be familiar with the judicial system. As such, they may be equipped with the tools needed to effectively argue their case.

Something else to consider is that it can be difficult to learn about a judges’ common sentencing practice for a specific crime , as they are generally not listed in statutes or court rules. One way to find out what a punishment will be is to pay for an hour-long consultation with a private attorney, or to speak with a lawyer at the public defender’s office.

In criminal cases , it is generally advised that you avoid representing yourself. Even if you cannot afford a private lawyer, you have the constitutional right to the counsel of a public defender. One advantage to doing so would be that public defenders generally have much more trial experience than a private criminal defense attorney.

Parties in civil law should also avoid self-representation under specific circumstances. Examples include:

• Highly emotional family law cases, such as divorce or child custody;
• Bankruptcy; and/or

Additionally, there are specific phases of judicial proceedings which are considerably harder without an attorney. Examples include drafting a complaint or counterclaim, as well anything associated with procedural law.

As was previously mentioned, pro se defendants have a lesser chance of winning their case than if they were represented by an attorney. Before making a representation decision, criminal defendants should consider the following disadvantages associated with self representation:

• Lack of Training and Knowledge: Most defendants are not adequately trained in the law to represent themselves, as most criminal defendants have not gone to law school or received any legal training. Because of this, they will lack the knowledge of how to argue a case, and will also be unfamiliar with common criminal procedure requirements that courts impose;
• Inferior Argument Skills: Knowledge alone is not enough to win a case and persuade the judge or jury that they are not guilty. The average person will generally find it difficult to argue if they lack training in communication and argumentation skills. Additionally, language barriers can further complicate these situations;
• Bias: Pro se defendants will generally have inherent bias because they cannot look at the case from the other party’s position, while lawyers are trained to think in terms of the best case strategy and arguments. It is important to note that even defendants who are attorneys, or who have legal experience, may not be able to see past their bias when they are representing themselves; and
• Delays: Because many self represented defendants are unfamiliar with court and case rules and procedures, this may cause delays with case resolution, or even sanctions against the defendant.

To reiterate, a self-represented criminal defendant can hire a lawyer to assist in their pro se defense. This attorney can review documents and prepare for the various hearings associated with a criminal defense; however, not all attorneys are willing to do this. An example of this would be how if one of these lawyers gives advice and the self represented defendant misunderstands that advice or uses it incorrectly, the lawyer may be professionally liable.

If someone attempts to represent themselves but later decides to hire a lawyer, they may do so. However, either that person or the attorney must notify the court of the change in representation. In some circumstances, they may need to ask the court for permission to do so. Additionally, the legal process will continue from where the case left off; the case will not restart simply because the self-represented person changed their mind about hiring an attorney.

If the counsel you have is ineffective , you do have the option of representing yourself. However, in most cases, you should find a new attorney to pick up where the old lawyer left off.

If you decide to represent yourself, you will need to gain an understanding of the basic workings of the legal system in your jurisdiction. Additionally, many criminal lawyers offer their services as trial coaches.

This means that they will advise a party acting pro se on how to navigate the legal system, and develop an overall trial strategy. This generally costs 10-20% of what it would cost for the same lawyer to actually represent you in court.

Save Time and Money - Speak With a Lawyer Right Away

• Buy one 30-minute consultation call or subscribe for unlimited calls
• Subscription includes access to unlimited consultation calls at a reduced price
• Receive quick expert feedback or review your DIY legal documents
• Have peace of mind without a long wait or industry standard retainer
• Get the right guidance - Schedule a call with a lawyer today!

Need a Criminal Defense Lawyer in your Area?

• Connecticut
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• West Virginia

Travis Peeler

LegalMatch Legal Writer

Updating Author

Travis earned his J.D. in 2017 from the University of Houston Law Center and his B.A. with honors from the University of Texas in 2014. Travis has written about numerous legal topics ranging from articles tracking every Supreme Court decision in Texas to the law of virtual reality. In his spare time off from the legal world and quest for knowledge, this 3rd degree black belt and certified instructor aspires to work with various charities geared towards bringing access to entertainment and gaming to all persons. Read More

Ken LaMance, Attorney at Law

Senior Editor

Original Author

Jose Rivera, J.D.

Managing Editor

Preparing for Your Case

• What to Do to Have a Strong Criminal Defense Case
• Top 5 Types of Documents/Evidence to Gather for Your Criminal Case

Related Articles

• Result of a Vehicular Assault Conviction
• Is Polygamy Legal?
• Leaving Animals Unattended in Vehicles: Fines, Punishment, Consequences, and Law
• Dog Fighting Laws
• Crime Victim Anonymity
• Master Car Keys and Criminal Liability
• Possessing an Instrument of Crime
• Making a Terroristic Threat: What is Considered Terroristic Threatening?
• Bounty Hunter Laws
• Breach of the Peace Law: Examples, Penalties & Defenses
• Exigent Circumstances
• The Right to an Attorney
• Unlawful Dumping Laws
• On-site Key Making
• Obstruction of Justice
• Anticipatory Warrant Lawyers
• Clergy Privilege Law
• Willful Blindness Lawyers
• Police Investigations after a Traffic Violation Stop
• Illegal Weapons Lawyers
• Pepper Spray Laws
• Hunting Accident Lawsuit
• Battered Woman's Syndrome Lawyers
• Adultery Law
• Explosives Lawyers
• Possession and Use of Fireworks Laws
• Telephone Harassment Laws
• Religious Rights of Inmates
• Prison Healthcare Laws
• Prisoner Rights Lawyers

Discover the Trustworthy LegalMatch Advantage

• No fee to present your case
• Choose from lawyers in your area
• A 100% confidential service

How does LegalMatch work?

Law Library Disclaimer

16 people have successfully posted their cases

Mission Local

Local news for a global city

Bob Lee murder trial: Doctor to testify Nima Momeni turned Lee’s knife on him

Share this:

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Sign up below to get Mission Local’s free newsletter , a daily digest of news you won’t find elsewhere.

A doctor and former medical examiner, who is being brought into court as an expert witness by the defense, is expected to testify that CashApp founder Bob Lee may have been holding the knife he was killed with last year. The defense contends that in self-defense, Nima Momeni, the man on trial for Lee’s murder, turned it around on him. 

John Marraccini, a witness expected to testify in Momeni’s defense in coming weeks, suggested today during a hearing in San Francisco Superior Court that the evidence in the case was consistent with someone defensively turning the knife on Lee on April 4, 2023. The prosecution is likely to argue that Momeni attacked Lee from the front. 

That night, Lee and Momeni left a party together at the Millennium Tower home of Momeni’s sister, Khazar, and stood together in the Rincon Hill neighborhood, near the Bay Bridge. A blurry surveillance video shows one figure lunging towards the other, before Lee walked away and bled out in the street while Momeni sped away in his car.  

The murder trial kicked off last week with motions about the admissibility of evidence and witnesses from both sides. Most of the hearings have been held behind closed doors for the past week “so as not to taint any potential jury pool,” according to Judge Alexandra Gordon. 

Today, in the first public hearing on whether a proposed witness will testify during the trial, Marraccini said the spot where Lee was stabbed — his  right hip — was an “atypical location for a willful direct assault.” 

“It is consistent with Mr. Lee withdrawing a knife from [his] right pocket with his [Lee’s] right hand,” Marraccini wrote in a statement, “and having this knife (still in Lee’s hand) redirected into the right side of [his] body by the defensive actions of the defendant.” 

Marraccini argued that Lee’s hip wound was on the opposite side than would be expected if the two men were facing each other and Momeni was armed with his right hand. 

“[Lee] had the weapon. He drew the weapon. The evidence that our experts, the scientific evidence, supports our theory,” said attorney Saam Zangeneh after the hearing. 

Momeni’s attorneys have been building a self-defense strategy for some time. Tomorrow, another hearing about a potential use-of-force expert witness from the San Francisco Police Department is expected to speak further to this strategy. 

Today, Zangeneh elaborated that the defense’s premise is that Momeni “stood his ground, and he used the amount of force necessary to make sure that he wasn’t hurt, that he didn’t sustain substantial serious bodily injury or death.” 

But it is unclear whether these theories will stand up in court. During questioning today, Marraccini agreed that there could have been other hypothetical series of events that could have led to Lee’s stab wounds. Moreover, he did not address the question of why Momeni sped away and left Lee to bleed out.

And prosecutors’ take on the nature of Lee’s stab wounds is uncertain. 

In fact, Zangeneh today asked directly in court what the District Attorney’s Office’s theory is, but got few answers. In the past, the DA’s office has outlined that they believe Momeni was motivated to stab Lee because he had slept with his sister, but they have not delved into the specific nature of his wounds.

“Our theory of the case is that Mr. Momeni stabbed and murdered Mr. Lee,” said Dane Reinstedt, a prosecutor on the case, on Wednesday. 

“How?” asked Zangeneh.

“I don’t think that there’s any requirement that we talk about that right now,” Reinstedt said. 

The judge agreed. 

More on Bob Lee And Nima Momeni

Nima Momeni ‘stood his ground,’ killed Bob Lee in self-defense, attorneys claim

Nima Momeni caught on film reenacting fatal stabbing of CashApp founder Bob Lee, prosecutors say

Bob Lee’s accused killer Nima Momeni turns 40 in jail as murder trial looms

Eleni balakrishnan.

REPORTER. Eleni reports on policing in San Francisco. She first moved to the city on a whim more than 10 years ago, and the Mission has become her home. Follow her on Twitter @miss_elenius.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

We've recently sent you an authentication link. Please, check your inbox!

Sign in with a password below, or sign in using your email .

Get a code sent to your email to sign in, or sign in using a password .

Enter the code you received via email to sign in, or sign in using a password .

• Subscribe to our newsletter

Sign in with your email

Lost your password?

Try a different email

Send another code

Sign in with a password

By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Conditions.

IEEE Account

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.