Category: Asia

Source: US Global Legal Monitor

The following is a guest post by Emily Tejada, a former intern with the Digital Resources Division of the Law Library of Congress. She is a recent graduate from Southern New Hampshire University.

One interesting aspect of the United States’ judicial law is defendants’ right to represent themselves in court. Many may ask, “Why would someone choose to represent themselves in court?” This mainly concerns defendants wanting to manage their own court proceedings as they see fit and the belief that exercising the right to self-represent offers them the best chance of achieving their goals. Self-representation in court proceedings is a constitutional right continuously protected under the United States’ judicial law. The right to represent oneself in court has resulted in a plethora of criminal cases in which defendants chose to waive the right to an attorney and conduct their own defense. One fascinating self-representation case pertains to America’s first serial killer, H.H. Holmes. Following Holmes’ court case, three major cases solidified the legal precedent for a defendant’s right to represent themself in a criminal case and the regulations that dictate these types of court proceedings.

Self-Representation is also known as proceeding pro se, which is Latin for “for oneself, on one’s own behalf.” This term refers to a defendant’s right to advocate on their own behalf before a court by waiving their right to attorney representation. This judicial right has been strongly protected since the United States’ founding under the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the national judicial court system and was signed into law by President George Washington himself. Section 35 of the Judiciary Act, which can be found in Statutes at Large Volume One, set forth into law the right for parties to manage their own court cases. Section 35 states “[a]nd be it further enacted, that in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of such counsel or attorneys at law as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and causes therewithin. …”

The right of defendants to represent themselves in court is further protected under the Sixth Amendment, as it guarantees the rights of defendants, which include the right to a lawyer. Under this amendment, there is a basis that a defendant may acquire counsel representation by their own choice. The Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Sixth Amendment protect a defendant’s right to represent themselves in court.

One fascinating case of self-representation in criminal court deals with America’s first serial killer, H.H. Holmes. H.H. Holmes was born in 1861 as Herman Webster Mudgett in New Hampshire. Holmes developed a gruesome fascination with death – this included stealing corpses from graves and morgues during his college years at the University of Michigan, where Holmes would either sell these corpses to medical schools or burn and disfigure them to commit insurance fraud. Holmes would take out life insurance policies on these bodies before staging accidents to collect the money. He moved to Chicago in 1884 under the alias Dr. Henry H. Holmes, where he constructed a three-story hotel that would later become known as the “Murder Castle.” Holmes insisted that his guests, employees, and romantic partners were required to have life insurance policies and to list him as the beneficiary. He took advantage of the 1893 Chicago World Fair to target and lure guests to his hotel, many of whom disappeared. Once the fair ended, he and his accomplice, Benjamin Pitezel, traveled the United States, where a trail of homicides and disappearances followed Holmes, including the murder of Pitzel.

Holmes was arrested in Boston in 1894 as he was suspected of committing fraud. However, through a thorough investigation, the police soon connected Holmes to the murder of Benjamin Pitzel and his three children. Holmes eventually confessed to murdering 28 people; however, it is believed he could be responsible for up to 200 murders. Holmes was only formally charged with the murder of Benjamin Pitezel, and he requested to represent himself in court. Holmes’s choice to represent himself was quite unprecedented since no accused murderer had ever done so. Holmes refused to accept the services of attorneys Everett A. Schofield and Joseph R. Fahy, who were appointed to his case by the court of Philadelphia. According to court records, Holmes was nasty to the prosecutor, asked for scientific analysis on all evidence, claimed Benjamin Pitzel had committed suicide, and often deflected questions. He made a grave error when he requested a lunch break after a detailed and grotesque description of Pitzel’s corpse, and he continuously failed to support his claims of innocence. He eventually requested the assistance of his defense attorneys but was ultimately convicted of Pitzel’s murder and was subsequently hanged for his crimes on May 7, 1896. H.H. Holmes represents America’s first recorded serial killer and the first murderer to utilize his constitutional right to represent himself.

The three major court cases that have set Constitutional standards for self-representation are Faretta v. California (1975), McKaskle v. Wiggins (1982 – 1984), and Indiana v. Edwards (2008). Anthony Faretta was charged with grand theft and requested to represent himself in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Faretta stated that he was literate, had previously represented himself in criminal court, and did not wish to accept a public defender. While the presiding judge originally accepted his request, he soon determined Faretta was unable to adequately represent himself after questioning him on California state law and appointed a public defender. While the California court of appeals affirmed the judge’s ruling, stating that Faretta had no constitutional right to represent himself, the Supreme Court held that under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, defendants in state criminal trials have a constitutional right to represent themselves when they “voluntarily and intellectually” elect to do so and that the California State courts denied Faretta that right. This 1975 decision set forth that the Sixth Amendment implies a constitutional right to represent oneself in the United States’ courts, and pro se proceedings are based on this decision.

In the case of McKaskle v. Wiggins, Carl Edwin Wiggins was charged with robbing a Piggly Wiggly in San Antonio, Texas, and chose to waive his right to counsel. The court, however, chose to appoint Wiggins a standby counsel to assist him in understanding the basic rules of the courtroom. Wiggins frequently contested the role of his standby counsel and, after his conviction, argued for a new trial because his standby counsel interfered with his defense and deprived him of his constitutional right to represent himself, which was guaranteed under Faretta v. California. While the court of appeals held that Wiggins’ sixth amendment right to represent himself was violated by unsolicited participation of the standby counsel, the Supreme Court held that Wiggins’ constitutional right was not violated due to his ability to conduct his own defense as he saw fit and that the unsolicited intervention of the standby counsel was within reasonable limits. This case set the basic foundation for standby counsel to be allowed to participate in self-representation cases.

In Indiana v. Edwards, Ahmad Edwards was charged with attempted murder after shooting an FBI agent, a security guard, and a bystander after stealing a pair of shoes. Edwards’s mental competency to stand trial was called into question, but after five years of psychiatric evaluation, he was deemed competent enough to stand trial. Edwards requested to represent himself in court; however, his medical records stated that he suffered from schizophrenia, and his requests were systematically denied. The

Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it is free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.

MIL OSI USA News –