enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
One more thing
by jackthompson
-1 Reply

The US Supreme Court in Faretta guarantees the right of individuals to represent themselves. The Florida Supreme Court can't even figure THAT out.

Re: One more thing
by SeattleMan78

The US constitution guarantees every American’s right to represent themselves AT TRIAL (the right to face one's accuser(s)), not the right to file frivolous filings and petitions with the courts (at which point the court may require one to have a more reputable lawyer file on one's own behalf).

Re: One more thing
by vnk

Faretta is also based on a criminal defendant being competent. Heh.

But seriously, and more to the point: 1) Faretta controls in criminal cases, as SeattleMan notes, since the Sixth Amendment is inapplicable to civil cases; and 2) the majority in Faretta notes that even in a criminal case, a trial judge may terminate self-representation "by a defendant who deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct. See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337," and goes on to discuss the appointment of standby counsel (see Faretta 422 U.S. 806, 834 n. 46). Indeed, the following comment from Faretta seems particularly apt: "The right of self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law." (Ibid.)

It only follows that even in a criminal case, the Sixth Amendment wouldn't entitle a defendant to rain motions upon the court in which the court is insulted with illustrations of a kangaroo in judicial robes, even less so when the defendant had previously been reprimanded for filing briefs containing gratuitous reproductions of pornographic images. Not that we're even talking about a criminal matter, he repeated for the nth time.

In short, the failure to communicate doesn't appear to be on the part of the Florida Supreme Court, but on the part of the man who seems hellbent on proving the classic "a man who represents himself has a fool for a client." Or better yet, as my boss once said about a former client when I naively quoted the above cliche after our office was fired by an idiot we were representing, who chose to represent himself in the middle of his criminal trial: "No, I had a fool for a client--now he has a fool for a lawyer."

Is Mr. Thompson a fool? Look at that excerpt from his motion in "Hot Document" again (not "hot coffee," that's something else), and recall that hoary legal saying, res ipsa loquitur--"the thing speaks for itself."

(Great. Now I'm going to get sued. Or subpoenaed. Or the FBI will be called because I used big words and made Mr. Thompson's head hurt. Please don't sue me, Mr. Thompson--I am so judgement proof, you wouldn't believe. Not that that would stop you, we all know how you are about windmills and knightly valor and all.)

View as RSS news feed in XML