
In Faretta v. California (1975), a defendant who wanted to represent himself was quizzed by the judge about his familiarity with criminal procedure and evidence. Things did not go very well:
“THE COURT: In the Faretta matter, I brought you back down here to do some reconsideration as to whether or not you should continue to represent yourself.””How have you been getting along on your research?”
“THE DEFENDANT: Not bad, your Honor.””Last night, I put in the mail a 995 motion, and it should be with the Clerk within the next day or two.”
“THE COURT: Have you been preparing yourself for the intricacies of the trial of the matter?”
“THE DEFENDANT: Well, your Honor, I was hoping that the case could possibly be disposed of on the 995.””Mrs. Ayers informed me yesterday that it was the Court’s policy to hear the pretrial motions at the time of trial. If possible, your Honor, I would like a date set as soon as the Court deems adequate after they receive the motion, sometime before trial.”
“THE COURT: Let’s see how you have been doing on your research.””How many exceptions are there to the hearsay rule?”
“THE DEFENDANT: Well, the hearsay rule would, I guess, be called the best evidence rule, your Honor. And there are several exceptions in case law, but in actual statutory law, I don’t feel there is none.”
“THE COURT: What are the challenges to the jury for cause?””THE DEFENDANT: Well, there is twelve peremptory challenges. “
“THE COURT: And how many for cause?”
“THE DEFENDANT: Well, as many as the Court deems valid.”
“THE COURT: And what are they? What are the grounds for challenging a juror for cause?”
“THE DEFENDANT: Well. numerous grounds to challenge a witness — I mean, a juror, your Honor, one being the juror is perhaps suffered, was a victim of the same type of offense, might be prejudiced toward the defendant. Any substantial ground that might make the juror prejudice[d] toward the defendant.”
“THE COURT: Anything else?”
“THE DEFENDANT: Well, a relative perhaps of the victim.”
“THE COURT: Have you taken a look at that code section to see what it is?”
“THE DEFENDANT: Challenge a juror?””THE COURT: Yes. ,”
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. I have done — “
“THE COURT: What is the code section?”
“THE DEFENDANT: On voir diring a jury, your Honor?”
“THE COURT: Yes.”
“THE DEFENDANT: I am not aware of the section right off-hand.”
“THE COURT: What code is it in?”
“THE DEFENDANT: Well, the research I have done on challenging would be in Witkins Jurisprudence.”
“THE COURT: Have you looked at any of the codes to see where these various things are taken up?”
“THE DEFENDANT: No, your Honor, I haven’t.”
“THE COURT: Have you looked in any of the California Codes with reference to trial procedure?”
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor.”
“THE COURT: What codes?”
“THE DEFENDANT: I have done extensive research in the Penal Code, your Honor, and the Civil Code.”
“THE COURT: If you have done extensive research into it, then tell me about it.”
“THE DEFENDANT: On empaneling a jury, your Honor?”
“THE COURT: Yes.”
“THE DEFENDANT: Well, the District Attorney and the defendant, defense counsel, has both the right to 12 peremptory challenges of a jury. These 12 challenges are undisputable. Any reason that the defense or prosecution should feel that a juror would be inadequate to try the case or to rule on a case, they may then discharge that juror.””But if there is a valid challenge due to grounds of prejudice or some other grounds, that these aren’t considered in the 12 peremptory challenges. There are numerous, and the defendant, the defense and the prosecution both have the right to make any inquiry to the jury as to their feelings toward the case.”
The judge concluded:”[T]aking into consideration the recent case of People versus Sharp, where the defendant apparently does not have a constitutional right to represent himself, the Court finds that the ends of justice and requirements of due process require that the prior order permitting the defendant to represent himself in pro per should be and is hereby revoked. That privilege is terminated.”
Whenever I teach Faretta, I ask my students whether they think the judge honed in on the right things. My two cents are that the judge focused on all kinds of formalities to humble Faretta and dissuade him from representing himself when, in fact, he seemed to have a pretty good grasp of his rights and how to conduct his defense.
I was reminded of Faretta this week when courtroom podcasts threw in two cases in which defendants who faced very serious charges opted to go pro se, and if you’re looking for something to listen to, this is definitely worth your time. The first one is Quintin Nixon’s trial as reported on the Court Junkie podcast. A drug-fueled gathering of friends turned deadly, but there was a paucity of witnesses who saw the lethal shot fired, and Nixon’s decision to represent himself was newsworthy. Nixon was eventually convicted, and the judge scolded him for choosing to go pro se, which I’m not sure sits well with me. If the judge thought Nixon was incapable of representing himself, why was he allowed to do that? Moreover, I listened to the proceedings, albeit edited, on the podcast, and my impression is that Nixon did a fairly good job asking excellent questions on cross examination.
The second case has to do with the pretrial hearing of convicted murderer Lori Daybell who, after being convicted of and sentenced for the horrific murder of her two children (she took up with a guy, they started a doomsday cult), is now being charged elsewhere for the murder of her fourth husband (the one she got rid of to be with the doomsday cult leader). Daybell is representing herself. I’m quite impressed with how the judge ran the motion hearing; Daybell made some good arguments, especially regarding media access to the trial (this is bound to turn to a media circus) and the judge fostered some collaboration among the parties, toning down the deep horror and bitterness of the prosecution at having to do deals with someone who is, of course, presumed innocent of the crime but definitely not presumed innocent anymore of two other horrific crimes related to this one. The choice to go pro se here might not be too curious when one thinks that Daybell will likely spend the rest of her days behind bars and does not have much to lose, especially given the overwhelming evidence on the other side. What I wonder is how voir dire will go.
I encourage readers to listen to the two podcasts and think about whether they think that the defendants did a good job with their self-representation, and whether they think that the judge made allowances for the defendants’ lack of expertise. Would you recommend someone with that level of expertise, ingenuity, and self-investment to go pro se? Why or why not?