I could write a whole paper on limits to the right of self representation. I don't much care to do it now, seeing as how I've got other, far more important things to do...
I didn't ask you to write me a whole paper on limits to the right of self representation. I asked you to address the specific points raised above in that article as they relate to the Manson case - which seems to be what you've successfully made this thread on the West Memphis 3 all about.
But hey, you're not really interested anyway, so why bother?
Exactly. And addressed those points repeatedly, you just don't accept the answers I've given. Manson was turning the trial into a circus, so they stopped him from representing himself and interviewing witnesses. That's within the judge's discretion, which is no doubt why his habeas appeals haven't gone anywhere. Your article argues against that, but it's totally unattributed and unsourced. There's no name from it, you won't say where you read it or who wrote it or what their qualifications are, and it makes no reference to any actual legal arguments for Manson's rights being violated, just a generic claim that his 6th amendment right was violated, ignoring the many permissible restrictions on that right (and not bothering to cite to any actual case law to support his claim that this right is absolute in any event). There's not a leg to stand on here.
Exactly. And addressed those points repeatedly, you just don't accept the answers I've given. Manson was turning the trial into a circus, so they stopped him from representing himself and interviewing witnesses. That's within the judge's discretion, which is no doubt why his habeas appeals haven't gone anywhere. Your article argues against that, but it's totally unattributed and unsourced. There's no name from it, you won't say where you read it or who wrote it or what their qualifications are, and it makes no reference to any actual legal arguments for Manson's rights being violated, just a generic claim that his 6th amendment right was violated, ignoring the many permissible restrictions on that right (and not bothering to cite to any actual case law to support his claim that this right is absolute in any event). There's not a leg to stand on here.
You didn't address the points raised in the above article regarding Manson's right to represent himself. You used slippery tactics to avoid addressing those points. You say that it's within the judges discretion to deny someone his constitutional right to self-representation? Please explain how that is so. And you keep mentioning that the article is unattributed and unsourced. I asked you before what difference that makes. Let's for arguments sake say that the wizard of Oz wrote it. How does that alter the points raised in the article? Does the law change depending on who's discussing it, or is the law the same for everybody? You are also unsourced. Soulsinging - is that your real name? I think many people would find it a bit odd to appear in court and find themselves represented by someone called Soulsinging. As far as the 'many permissible restrictions on the 6th Amendment right to self representation', you haven't mentioned any.
Maybe you need to read it again:
'Why the "outlandish and nonsensical" motions were not simply overruled was not explained. Whatever the real reason, Keene's action violated Manson's constitutional right to defend himself. Any defense presented after that ruling (and in fact there was none) was invalid, and in direct opposition to the Sixth Amendment right to self representation.
This issue was brought up in Manson's Appeal. In that appeal the California Justices denied Manson's request for a new trial claiming that a federal ruling which affirmed the Sixth Amendment right did not apply to Manson because the decision came after his trial and "was not to be given retroactive application". This interpretation of the law was later overruled in Bittaker v. Enomoto, wherein a United States Federal Appeals Court ruled "Although California defendant's trial occurred prior to United States Supreme Court's Faretta decision confirming to state defendants the constitutional right to self-representation, denial of the California defendant's right of self-representation was a federal constitutional defect requiring setting aside of his conviction". Manson is mentioned specifically in footnote # 2 of this decision.
The right to self-representation is as fundamental and undeniable as any other right. It is every citizen's constitutional right. That is why Colin Ferguson, the seemingly deranged Long Island Railroad gunman, was allowed to defend himself at his trial. It doesn't matter if the defendant's defense may be unconventional. Self-representation is his constitutional right.
The denial of Charles Manson's right to represent himself during his trials is a fatal flaw in the legitimacy of those trials. Manson's convictions, and his present incarceration, are illegal.
Over the years Manson has filed several habeas corpus petitions with the Los Angeles County Superior Court protesting his imprisonment based on the claim that he was denied the right to defend himself. All of these petitions have been dismissed at the Superior Court level with no explanation other than that the petitioner (Manson) had failed to establish that the claims made in the petitions warranted the granting of the writ. This is a standard rubber-stamp denial. None of the legal arguments advanced in any of these writs has ever been addressed.
Now how about addressing the points I've highlighted? And try to limit the amount of standard lawyers trickery and evasion in your answers.
Exactly. And addressed those points repeatedly, you just don't accept the answers I've given. Manson was turning the trial into a circus, so they stopped him from representing himself and interviewing witnesses. That's within the judge's discretion, which is no doubt why his habeas appeals haven't gone anywhere. Your article argues against that, but it's totally unattributed and unsourced. There's no name from it, you won't say where you read it or who wrote it or what their qualifications are, and it makes no reference to any actual legal arguments for Manson's rights being violated, just a generic claim that his 6th amendment right was violated, ignoring the many permissible restrictions on that right (and not bothering to cite to any actual case law to support his claim that this right is absolute in any event). There's not a leg to stand on here.
You didn't address the points raised in the above article regarding Manson's right to represent himself. You used slippery tactics to avoid addressing those points. You say that it's within the judges discretion to deny someone his constitutional right to self-representation? Please explain how that is so. And you keep mentionioning that the article is unattributed and unsourced. I asked you before what difference that makes. Let's for arguments sake say that the wizard of Oz wrote it. How does that alter the points raised in the article? Does the law change depending on who's discussing it, or is the law the same for everybody? You are also unsourced. Soulsinging - is that your real name? I think many people would find it a bit odd to appear in court and find themselves represented by someone called Soulsinging. As far as the 'many permissible restrictions on the 6th Amendment right to self representation', you haven't mentioned any.
Maybe you need to read it again:
'Why the "outlandish and nonsensical" motions were not simply overruled was not explained. Whatever the real reason, Keene's action violated Manson's constitutional right to defend himself. Any defense presented after that ruling (and in fact there was none) was invalid, and in direct opposition to the Sixth Amendment right to self representation.
This issue was brought up in Manson's Appeal. In that appeal the California Justices denied Manson's request for a new trial claiming that a federal ruling which affirmed the Sixth Amendment right did not apply to Manson because the decision came after his trial and "was not to be given retroactive application". This interpretation of the law was later overruled in Bittaker v. Enomoto, wherein a United States Federal Appeals Court ruled "Although California defendant's trial occurred prior to United States Supreme Court's Faretta decision confirming to state defendants the constitutional right to self-representation, denial of the California defendant's right of self-representation was a federal constitutional defect requiring setting aside of his conviction". Manson is mentioned specifically in footnote # 2 of this decision.
The right to self-representation is as fundamental and undeniable as any other right. It is every citizen's constitutional right. That is why Colin Ferguson, the seemingly deranged Long Island Railroad gunman, was allowed to defend himself at his trial. It doesn't matter if the defendant's defense may be unconventional. Self-representation is his constitutional right.
The denial of Charles Manson's right to represent himself during his trials is a fatal flaw in the legitimacy of those trials. Manson's convictions, and his present incarceration, are illegal.
Over the years Manson has filed several habeas corpus petitions with the Los Angeles County Superior Court protesting his imprisonment based on the claim that he was denied the right to defend himself. All of these petitions have been dismissed at the Superior Court level with no explanation other than that the petitioner (Manson) had failed to establish that the claims made in the petitions warranted the granting of the writ. This is a standard rubber-stamp denial. None of the legal arguments advanced in any of these writs has ever been addressed.
Now how about addressing the points I've highlighted? And try to limit the amount of standard lawyers trickery and evasion in your answers.
Actually, I did:
"The first thing you posted is totally unsourced and unattributed. The one case it mentions discusses retroactivity, NOT the actual right to counsel, which is not absolute and can (and has) been limited in certain circumstances. Not that you'll see or understand the distinction."
Have you read that case, or the footnote it touts? I have. The case says nothing about the right to counsel, it talks about retroactivity. So the absolute right to counsel is an invention of the mystery author... whose name I note you continue to refuse to disclose. Nor does s/he provide a single legal source for the statement that there is an ABSOLUTE right to counsel. I'm sure you'll consider this a bunch of legal trickery though :roll:
I'm not sure what you want from me. I've said there's no absolute right to self representation. Your article says there is, but offers no legal support for that and you continue to refuse to divulge its source. Yet you keep asking me for "proof" that you're not willing to provide yourself. Probably because you know you have none and just keep hoping I'll make a typo or something that will allow you to jump on me and shout that I'm so wrong and you're so right and Manson is so victimized. :roll:
Here, I'll help you out: there's an absolute right to self representation. Quick, trim my quote down to that and then pat yourself on the back!
"The first thing you posted is totally unsourced and unattributed. The one case it mentions discusses retroactivity, NOT the actual right to counsel, which is not absolute and can (and has) been limited in certain circumstances. Not that you'll see or understand the distinction."
Have you read that case, or the footnote it touts? I have. The case says nothing about the right to counsel, it talks about retroactivity. So the absolute right to counsel is an invention of the mystery author... whose name I note you continue to refuse to disclose. Nor does s/he provide a single legal source for the statement that there is an ABSOLUTE right to counsel. I'm sure you'll consider this a bunch of legal trickery though :roll:
I'm not sure what you want from me. I've said there's no absolute right to self representation. Your article says there is, but offers no legal support for that and you continue to refuse to divulge its source. Yet you keep asking me for "proof" that you're not willing to provide yourself. Probably because you know you have none and just keep hoping I'll make a typo or something that will allow you to jump on me and shout that I'm so wrong and you're so right and Manson is so victimized. :roll:
Here, I'll help you out: there's an absolute right to self representation. Quick, trim my quote down to that and then pat yourself on the back!
You've said there's no absolute right to self representation but you haven't explained under what circumstances the 6th Amendment right to self-representation can be withdrawn, and how this was applied in the Manson case.
I also asked you what difference it makes who wrote the above article and you can't, or won't, answer me.
Did you ever notice when you go to the "official" website for the West Memphis Three.....
ONE THING stands out....
no matter what page you link on to...one thing is for certain....
you will see the words....
DONATE..
How much money collected by these people, who run this little collection to help free convicted child murderers, is actually going to help free the child murderers??? How much money is going in to their own pockets???
Just curious??
as I have said before....Show me people running a charity...or collecting money for a "cause"....
and I will show you people who are lining their own pockets with boatloads of cash.....
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
"The first thing you posted is totally unsourced and unattributed. The one case it mentions discusses retroactivity, NOT the actual right to counsel, which is not absolute and can (and has) been limited in certain circumstances. Not that you'll see or understand the distinction."
You say that the thing I posted doesn't mention the actual right to counsel. Funny that, I must be reading a different language to you:
From the article I posted: 'The right to self-representation is as fundamental and undeniable as any other right. It is every citizen's constitutional right. That is why Colin Ferguson, the seemingly deranged Long Island Railroad gunman, was allowed to defend himself at his trial. It doesn't matter if the defendant's defense may be unconventional. Self-representation is his constitutional right.
The denial of Charles Manson's right to represent himself during his trials is a fatal flaw in the legitimacy of those trials. Manson's convictions, and his present incarceration, are illegal.'
Also, you say that the 6th Amendment right to self-representation 'is not absolute and can (and has) been limited in certain circumstances'. So then why haven't you explained under what circumstances it is not applied? Why have you continually dodged this issue? Maybe it's because none of these circumstances apply to the Manson case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amen ... nstitution 'The Supreme Court expanded the right to pro se representation, holding in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the power to choose or waive counsel lies with the accused, and the state can not intrude, though it later held in Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993), that the state could deny the waiver if it believed the accused less than fully competent to adequately proceed without counsel.'
Regarding Manson's ability/competence to represent himself in court:
'Manson was examined by Joseph Ball, a former president of the California State Bar Association. Ball's assessment of Manson, presented in court on Christmas eve 1969, was that he was "an able, intelligent young man, quiet-spoken and mild-mannered. We went over different problems of law, and I found he had a ready understanding.... Remarkable understanding. As a matter of fact, he has a very fine brain. I complimented him on the fact. I think I told you that he had a high I.Q. Must have, to be able to converse as he did. And he feels that if he goes to trial and he is able to permit jurors and the Court to hear him and see him, they will realize he is not the kind of man who would perpetrate horrible crimes."
Judge Keene relented. "It is, in this Court's opinion, a sad and tragic mistake you are making by taking this course of action, but I can't talk you out ot it.... Mr. Manson, you are your own lawyer."
'In the United States, many state court systems and the federal courts are experiencing an increasing proportion of pro se litigants.[1] In the United States federal court system for the year 2007 approximately 27% of actions filed, 92% of prisoner petitions and 10% of non-prisoner petitions were filed by pro se litigants..
Limits
In some situations, self-represented appearances are not allowed. Generally, an owner can represent a solely owned business or partnership, but only a licensed attorney can represent a corporation.The ability of a party to proceed without an attorney in prosecuting or defending a civil action is largely a matter of state law, and may vary depending on the court and the positions of the parties. A longstanding and widely practiced rule prohibits corporations from being represented by non-attorneys, consistent with the existence of a corporation as a "person" separate and distinct from its officers and employees.[13]
"A nonlawyer may not sign and file a notice of appeal on behalf of a corporation. Requiring a lawyer to represent a corporation in filing the notice does not violate the guarantee that any suitor may prosecute or defend a suit personally. A corporation is not a natural person and does not fall with in the term “any suitor.”[14][15][16]
Another situation in which appearance through counsel is often required is in a case involving the executor or personal administrator of a probate estate. Unless the executor or administrator is himself an attorney, he is not allowed to represent himself in matters other than the probate.[17]
Few federal court of appeals allow unrepresented litigants to argue, and in all courts the percentage of cases in which argument occurs is higher for counseled cases.'
So, is the following statement from the article I posted true or not?:
'The denial of Charles Manson's right to represent himself during his trials is a fatal flaw in the legitimacy of those trials. Manson's convictions, and his present incarceration, are illegal.'
"The first thing you posted is totally unsourced and unattributed. The one case it mentions discusses retroactivity, NOT the actual right to counsel, which is not absolute and can (and has) been limited in certain circumstances. Not that you'll see or understand the distinction."
You say that the thing I posted doesn't mention the actual right to counsel. Funny that, I must be reading a different language to you:
From the article I posted: 'The right to self-representation is as fundamental and undeniable as any other right. It is every citizen's constitutional right. That is why Colin Ferguson, the seemingly deranged Long Island Railroad gunman, was allowed to defend himself at his trial. It doesn't matter if the defendant's defense may be unconventional. Self-representation is his constitutional right.
The denial of Charles Manson's right to represent himself during his trials is a fatal flaw in the legitimacy of those trials. Manson's convictions, and his present incarceration, are illegal.'
Also, you say that the 6th Amendment right to self-representation 'is not absolute and can (and has) been limited in certain circumstances'. So then why haven't you explained under what circumstances it is not applied? Why have you continually dodged this issue? Maybe it's because none of these circumstances apply to the Manson case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amen ... nstitution 'The Supreme Court expanded the right to pro se representation, holding in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the power to choose or waive counsel lies with the accused, and the state can not intrude, though it later held in Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993), that the state could deny the waiver if it believed the accused less than fully competent to adequately proceed without counsel.'
Regarding Manson's ability/competence to represent himself in court:
'Manson was examined by Joseph Ball, a former president of the California State Bar Association. Ball's assessment of Manson, presented in court on Christmas eve 1969, was that he was "an able, intelligent young man, quiet-spoken and mild-mannered. We went over different problems of law, and I found he had a ready understanding.... Remarkable understanding. As a matter of fact, he has a very fine brain. I complimented him on the fact. I think I told you that he had a high I.Q. Must have, to be able to converse as he did. And he feels that if he goes to trial and he is able to permit jurors and the Court to hear him and see him, they will realize he is not the kind of man who would perpetrate horrible crimes."
Judge Keene relented. "It is, in this Court's opinion, a sad and tragic mistake you are making by taking this course of action, but I can't talk you out ot it.... Mr. Manson, you are your own lawyer."
'In the United States, many state court systems and the federal courts are experiencing an increasing proportion of pro se litigants.[1] In the United States federal court system for the year 2007 approximately 27% of actions filed, 92% of prisoner petitions and 10% of non-prisoner petitions were filed by pro se litigants..
Limits
In some situations, self-represented appearances are not allowed. Generally, an owner can represent a solely owned business or partnership, but only a licensed attorney can represent a corporation.The ability of a party to proceed without an attorney in prosecuting or defending a civil action is largely a matter of state law, and may vary depending on the court and the positions of the parties. A longstanding and widely practiced rule prohibits corporations from being represented by non-attorneys, consistent with the existence of a corporation as a "person" separate and distinct from its officers and employees.[13]
"A nonlawyer may not sign and file a notice of appeal on behalf of a corporation. Requiring a lawyer to represent a corporation in filing the notice does not violate the guarantee that any suitor may prosecute or defend a suit personally. A corporation is not a natural person and does not fall with in the term “any suitor.”[14][15][16]
Another situation in which appearance through counsel is often required is in a case involving the executor or personal administrator of a probate estate. Unless the executor or administrator is himself an attorney, he is not allowed to represent himself in matters other than the probate.[17]
Few federal court of appeals allow unrepresented litigants to argue, and in all courts the percentage of cases in which argument occurs is higher for counseled cases.'
So, is the following statement from the article I posted true or not?:
'The denial of Charles Manson's right to represent himself during his trials is a fatal flaw in the legitimacy of those trials. Manson's convictions, and his present incarceration, are illegal.'
Shit man, what did I go to law school for? Apparently everything you need to know to analyze criminal trial practice in the US is wikipedia! :roll:
No, that statement is not true. The judge later rightfully revoked Manson's pro se defense when he proved himself unfit by filing nonsensical motions and disrupting the trial... the same schizophrenic behaviors that would later appear in his parole hearings. But that was all an act of course. :roll:
You've said there's no absolute right to self representation but you haven't explained under what circumstances the 6th Amendment right to self-representation can be withdrawn, and how this was applied in the Manson case.
I also asked you what difference it makes who wrote the above article and you can't, or won't, answer me.
Unfitness. It is, as many legal issues, too complicated to explain to someone on a message board. Esp someone unwilling to believe anything that doesn't come from his own opinion first. I did point out earlier that Manson was, in the parlance of our times, acting a fool in court and so his right was revoked because it was clear he was not competent to represent himself.
What matters is that the article is utterly unsourced and cites to almost no legal authority, and what little it does is cited improperly. I suspect it's a hack non-lawyer who, like you, read the wikipedia entry on the 6th amendment and then pulled together this nonsense to post on his "Charlie Manson was innocent and cattle mutilations are on the rise" webpage. It's even possible you wrote the damn thing yourself hoping it would add some fake legitimacy to your argument. The fact that you refuse to divulge where it came from is rather telling. It's clearly not an objective, qualified legal analysis of the issue.
Unfitness. It is, as many legal issues, too complicated to explain to someone on a message board. Esp someone unwilling to believe anything that doesn't come from his own opinion first. I did point out earlier that Manson was, in the parlance of our times, acting a fool in court and so his right was revoked because it was clear he was not competent to represent himself.
Sure, that old chestnut. When you're unable to provide an answer it's not because you're wrong, it's because it's too complicated for anyone but a lawyer to understand.
What matters is that the article is utterly unsourced and cites to almost no legal authority, and what little it does is cited improperly. I suspect it's a hack non-lawyer who, like you, read the wikipedia entry on the 6th amendment and then pulled together this nonsense to post on his "Charlie Manson was innocent and cattle mutilations are on the rise" webpage. It's even possible you wrote the damn thing yourself hoping it would add some fake legitimacy to your argument. The fact that you refuse to divulge where it came from is rather telling. It's clearly not an objective, qualified legal analysis of the issue.
It's from a blog. There, happy now? And what about you? What's your legal authority? You say you went to law school. So what? You may have done, and you may not have done. You may have even flunked your course. It's all utterly irrelevant. The facts of the law don't change depending on who's discussing them. The above article/blog may have been written by Judge Judy. Or, it may have been written by Mickey Mouse, or some anonymous dude calls himself Soulsinging.
'Judge Keene, upset over some supposedly "outlandish" and "nonsensical" motions filed by Manson, vacated his status as his own attorney. Why the "outlandish and nonsensical" motions were not simply overruled was not explained. Whatever the real reason, Keene's action violated Manson's constitutional right to defend himself. Any defense presented after that ruling (and in fact there was none) was invalid, and in direct opposition to the Sixth Amendment right to self representation.'
The right to self-representation is as fundamental and undeniable as any other right. It is every citizen's constitutional right. That is why Colin Ferguson, the seemingly deranged Long Island Railroad gunman, was allowed to defend himself at his trial. It doesn't matter if the defendant's defense may be unconventional. Self-representation is his constitutional right.
I posted a list above of the limits imposed on self-representation. None of them mention 'acting a fool in court' as reason to revoke the 6th amendment right to self-representation. Manson was judged fit to represent himself. Now go ahead and dodge these points and tell us all that this is issue if far too complicated for anyone but a lawyer to understand.
I did point out earlier that Manson was, in the parlance of our times, acting a fool in court and so his right was revoked because it was clear he was not competent to represent himself.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. If someone is deemed competent to stand trial, then they are competent enough to represent themselves in court if they so choose.
'The standard of competency to represent oneself at trial is the same standard as competency to stand trial. The federal constitutional right to self-representation requires that a defendant who is competent to be tried for a crime be permitted to proceed pro se if that is the defendant's choice...
Edwards v. State, 866 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 2007), was decided on May 17, 2007, by the Indiana Supreme Court. In this case, Ahmad Edwards had been found competent to stand trial, but the court refused to allow him to represent himself at trial. Following his conviction, he appealed, contending he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. The Indiana Supreme Court acknowledged that the trial court's decision seemed reasonable; however, given that the trial court had declared him competent to stand trial, the U.S. Supreme Court precedent required that Mr. Edwards be given the right to represent himself at trial, assuming that his waiver of his right to counsel was knowing and voluntary.
The standard for competence to stand trial was established in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), which held that a defendant should have "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and have a "rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him" to be competent.
In Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the Dusky standard, overturning the Ninth Circuit's ruling that competence to waive the right to assistance of counsel requires a higher level of mental function than is needed to stand trial, holding instead that "the competence that is required of a defendant seeking to waive his right to counsel is the competence to waive the right, not the competence to represent himself" (Godinez, 509 U.S., p 399). The Court concluded that the standard of competence for waiving the right to counsel is not higher than that required to stand trial. However, it also held that "a trial court must... satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary. In this sense there is a ‘heightened’ standard for ... waiving the right to counsel, but it is not a heightened standard of competence" (Godinez, 509 U.S., pp 400–1).
It's from a blog. There, happy now? And what about you? What's your legal authority? You say you went to law school. So what? You may have done, and you may not have done. You may have even flunked your course. It's all utterly irrelevant. The facts of the law don't change depending on who's discussing them. The above article/blog may have been written by Judge Judy. Or, it may have been written by Mickey Mouse, or some anonymous dude calls himself Soulsinging.
I have no authority, because as I've told you, I have better things to do with my time than write a brief on the legal issues in the Manson case. I've got the bar exam to study for. And I don't do legal work unless I'm getting paid, and you can't afford me.
No, the facts and the law don't change depending on who's discussing them. But it was clear from that blog post that it was written by a layman because it had no legal merit or argument.
I did point out earlier that Manson was, in the parlance of our times, acting a fool in court and so his right was revoked because it was clear he was not competent to represent himself.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. If someone is deemed competent to stand trial, then they are competent enough to represent themselves in court if they so choose.
'The standard of competency to represent oneself at trial is the same standard as competency to stand trial. The federal constitutional right to self-representation requires that a defendant who is competent to be tried for a crime be permitted to proceed pro se if that is the defendant's choice...
Edwards v. State, 866 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 2007), was decided on May 17, 2007, by the Indiana Supreme Court. In this case, Ahmad Edwards had been found competent to stand trial, but the court refused to allow him to represent himself at trial. Following his conviction, he appealed, contending he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. The Indiana Supreme Court acknowledged that the trial court's decision seemed reasonable; however, given that the trial court had declared him competent to stand trial, the U.S. Supreme Court precedent required that Mr. Edwards be given the right to represent himself at trial, assuming that his waiver of his right to counsel was knowing and voluntary.
The standard for competence to stand trial was established in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), which held that a defendant should have "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and have a "rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him" to be competent.
In Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the Dusky standard, overturning the Ninth Circuit's ruling that competence to waive the right to assistance of counsel requires a higher level of mental function than is needed to stand trial, holding instead that "the competence that is required of a defendant seeking to waive his right to counsel is the competence to waive the right, not the competence to represent himself" (Godinez, 509 U.S., p 399). The Court concluded that the standard of competence for waiving the right to counsel is not higher than that required to stand trial. However, it also held that "a trial court must... satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary. In this sense there is a ‘heightened’ standard for ... waiving the right to counsel, but it is not a heightened standard of competence" (Godinez, 509 U.S., pp 400–1).
You might want to try reading to the end:
"Thus, the issue framed by Edwards, "... presents an opportunity to revisit the holdings of Faretta and Godinez, if the Supreme Court decides that it is to be done" (Edwards, 866 N.E.2d, p 260). However, although the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case on December 7, 2007, it plans to address only the more limited question: "May states adopt a higher standard for measuring competency to represent oneself at trial than for measuring competency to stand trial?" Nonetheless, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's past holdings that heavily weigh substantive due process for disadvantaged defendants (e.g., providing for access to counsel and expert witnesses), the Court's consideration of this case may result in some interesting opinions that will be very important for our field relative to the broader issues."
The jury's still out on this issue. The holding was from the Indiana supreme court (not binding on anyone but Indiana), was decided years after Manson's conviction, and SCOTUS has yet to take it up. The law in California is still:
"However, it also held that "a trial court must... satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary. In this sense there is a ‘heightened’ standard for ... waiving the right to counsel, but it is not a heightened standard of competence" (Godinez, 509 U.S., pp 400–1)."
As I said, it's to the discretion of the trial court judge. It's been reviewed endlessly by appellate courts who have affirmed that trial judge's decision.
It's from a blog. There, happy now? And what about you? What's your legal authority? You say you went to law school. So what? You may have done, and you may not have done. You may have even flunked your course. It's all utterly irrelevant. The facts of the law don't change depending on who's discussing them. The above article/blog may have been written by Judge Judy. Or, it may have been written by Mickey Mouse, or some anonymous dude calls himself Soulsinging.
I have no authority, because as I've told you, I have better things to do with my time than write a brief on the legal issues in the Manson case. I've got the bar exam to study for. And I don't do legal work unless I'm getting paid, and you can't afford me.
No, the facts and the law don't change depending on who's discussing them. But it was clear from that blog post that it was written by a layman because it had no legal merit or argument.
Soul, you are clearly outmatched on this one. not only does he have access to Wiki, now you have "Blogs" to contend with. you are out of your element on this one buddy.
and least not forgot buddy, you are also dealing with a person who when asked if Charles Manson is dangerous the answer is.....ready for it.....Maybe
I give you credit for wasting more then 30 seconds debating this topic with someone with such misguiding beliefs.
It's from a blog. There, happy now? And what about you? What's your legal authority? You say you went to law school. So what? You may have done, and you may not have done. You may have even flunked your course. It's all utterly irrelevant. The facts of the law don't change depending on who's discussing them. The above article/blog may have been written by Judge Judy. Or, it may have been written by Mickey Mouse, or some anonymous dude calls himself Soulsinging.
I have no authority, because as I've told you, I have better things to do with my time than write a brief on the legal issues in the Manson case. I've got the bar exam to study for. And I don't do legal work unless I'm getting paid, and you can't afford me.
No, the facts and the law don't change depending on who's discussing them. But it was clear from that blog post that it was written by a layman because it had no legal merit or argument.
Soul, you are clearly outmatched on this one. not only does he have access to Wiki, now you have "Blogs" to contend with. you are out of your element on this one buddy.
and least not forgot buddy, you are also dealing with a person who when asked if Charles Manson is dangerous the answer is.....ready for it.....Maybe
I give you credit for wasting more then 30 seconds debating this topic with someone with such misguiding beliefs.
Apparently I will do anything to avoid studying for the bar, including slam my head repeatedly against something that makes a brick wall look reasonable
I have no authority, because as I've told you, I have better things to do with my time than write a brief on the legal issues in the Manson case. I've got the bar exam to study for. And I don't do legal work unless I'm getting paid, and you can't afford me.
You know what's in my bank account then? Fuck me, you really do believe that you're omniscient don't you? Is that what studying law does to a person?
No, the facts and the law don't change depending on who's discussing them. But it was clear from that blog post that it was written by a layman because it had no legal merit or argument.
A layman who's legal merit and argument you've been unable to disprove.
"Thus, the issue framed by Edwards, "... presents an opportunity to revisit the holdings of Faretta and Godinez, if the Supreme Court decides that it is to be done" (Edwards, 866 N.E.2d, p 260). However, although the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case on December 7, 2007, it plans to address only the more limited question: "May states adopt a higher standard for measuring competency to represent oneself at trial than for measuring competency to stand trial?" Nonetheless, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's past holdings that heavily weigh substantive due process for disadvantaged defendants (e.g., providing for access to counsel and expert witnesses), the Court's consideration of this case may result in some interesting opinions that will be very important for our field relative to the broader issues."
The jury's still out on this issue. The holding was from the Indiana supreme court (not binding on anyone but Indiana), was decided years after Manson's conviction, and SCOTUS has yet to take it up. The law in California is still:
"However, it also held that "a trial court must... satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary. In this sense there is a ‘heightened’ standard for ... waiving the right to counsel, but it is not a heightened standard of competence" (Godinez, 509 U.S., pp 400–1)."
As I said, it's to the discretion of the trial court judge. It's been reviewed endlessly by appellate courts who have affirmed that trial judge's decision.
So, Manson was deemed fit to represent himself in a court of law, but according to you, the judge waived his right of self-representation because he later decided that Manson didn't knowingly and voluntarily wish to represent himself?
I'm going to ask you a serious question: Who do you think you're kidding?
Soul, you are clearly outmatched on this one. not only does he have access to Wiki, now you have "Blogs" to contend with. you are out of your element on this one buddy.
and least not forgot buddy, you are also dealing with a person who when asked if Charles Manson is dangerous the answer is.....ready for it.....Maybe
I give you credit for wasting more then 30 seconds debating this topic with someone with such misguiding beliefs.
I've just finished watching the documentary 'Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills'. One thing that stood out was the incident of the black man found covered in blood and mud hanging about in a nearby restaurant at the time of the murders.
From Wiki:
"Mr. Bojangles"
'Sighting of a possible black male suspect was implied during the beginnings of the trial, at which time the possibility of conviction of the initial suspects seemed slim. According to local West Memphis police officers, during the evening of May 5, 1993, at 8:42 pm, workers in the Bojangles' restaurant about a mile from the crime scene (a direct route through the bayou where the children were found) in Robin Hood Hills reported seeing an African American male "dazed and covered with blood and mud" inside the ladies' room of the restaurant. Defense attorneys later referred to this man as "Mr. Bojangles."[5]
The man was bleeding from his arm and had brushed against the walls. The man had defecated on himself on the floor. The police were called, but the man left the scene. Officer Regina Meeks responded (by inquiring at the drive through window) about 45 minutes later. By then, the man had left and police did not enter or examine the bloodstained bathroom on May 5.[citations needed]
The following day, when the victims were found, Bojangles' manager Marty King, thinking there was a possible connection between the bloody, disoriented man and the killings, called police twice to inform them of his suspicions. After the second telephone call police gathered evidence from the restroom.[10] Police wore the same shoes and clothes from the Robin Hood Woods crime scene into the Bojangles restaurant bathroom. Police detective Bryn Ridge later stated he lost the blood scrapings taken from the walls and tiles of the bathroom.[11] A hair identified as belonging to an African American was later recovered from a sheet which had been used to wrap one of the victims.[4]
Call me naive, but is the sight of someone "dazed and covered with blood and mud" slouching around a restaurant something that happens regularly in West Memphis?
And then to add to this the fact that the incident occurred near to the site of a triple murder and was then not properly investigated - the police lost the blood samples e.t.c, makes it hardly surprising that the police were then desperate to pin the murders on anyone they could find in order to cover up their own gross incompetence.
So, Jessie Misskelley - who possessed an I.Q of 72 was questioned without legal representation or access to his family. Only the last 45 minutes of the investigation were ever recorded. The subsequent confession was full of errors and inconsistencies.
No evidence linking the 3 defendants to the murders was ever presented. Echols and Baldwin were convicted because Damien Echols wore black clothes, listened to Metallica, and had an interest in the occult. Also, according to Jivepuppy.com Echol's is also alleged to have had some mental problems earlier in his life.
So that's justice, Memphis style.
Edit: I'm now going to watch 'Paradise Lost 2: Revelations'. Has anyone else here seen these two documentaries?
I have no authority, because as I've told you, I have better things to do with my time than write a brief on the legal issues in the Manson case. I've got the bar exam to study for. And I don't do legal work unless I'm getting paid, and you can't afford me.
You know what's in my bank account then? Fuck me, you really do believe that you're omniscient don't you? Is that what studying law does to a person?
No, the facts and the law don't change depending on who's discussing them. But it was clear from that blog post that it was written by a layman because it had no legal merit or argument.
A layman who's legal merit and argument you've been unable to disprove.
It's got nothing to do with your bank account. I wouldn't work for you for any price.
I can't disprove something that hasn't been proven. That's my point. I didn't disprove it, because all the guy did was say "the 6th amendment right to self-representation is absolute and Manson should be set free!" That's not proof. That's a statement, akin to me saying "it isn't, and he shouldn't." And as I've said, I've no interest in wasting my time doing legal research to brief the Charles Manson case for you. So yeah, I guess you win. You pwned me dude. You're like the internet's version of Chuck Norris. Kick ass man.
I can't disprove something that hasn't been proven. That's my point. I didn't disprove it, because all the guy did was say "the 6th amendment right to self-representation is absolute and Manson should be set free!" That's not proof. That's a statement, akin to me saying "it isn't, and he shouldn't." And as I've said, I've no interest in wasting my time doing legal research to brief the Charles Manson case for you. So yeah, I guess you win. You pwned me dude. You're like the internet's version of Chuck Norris. Kick ass man.
You feeling o.k? Not uptight or bitter about anything?
In this sense there is a ‘heightened’ standard for ... waiving the right to counsel,.
So, Manson was deemed fit to represent himself in a court of law, but according to you, the judge waived his right of self-representation because he later decided that Manson didn't knowingly and voluntarily wish to represent himself?
I'm going to ask you a serious question: Who do you think you're kidding?
Essentially yes. He granted Manson the waiver, then after Manson's circus act, he decided Manson had proven himself incapable of understanding the consequences of that decision and revoked the waiver. Judges do this sort of thing all the time. It's called judicial discretion.
So, I just finished watching 'Paradise Lost 2: Revelations'. It focuses heavily on Mark Byers, suggesting that he's the killer of the 3 boys. Personally I'm not convinced it was him. He's clearly a bit cracked, but I don't think he did it.
I'm gonna go with 'musicismylife78' here on this board and say that I think this Terry Hobbs character may well be the man.
The latest forensic evidence points to Terry Hobbs. And after watching the two documentaries back to back, and looking out for him in these films, something about him didn't seem quite right.
And Speedy, I recommend that you watch these films. Damien Echols strikes me as anything but a sick piece of human garbage.
In this sense there is a ‘heightened’ standard for ... waiving the right to counsel,.
So, Manson was deemed fit to represent himself in a court of law, but according to you, the judge waived his right of self-representation because he later decided that Manson didn't knowingly and voluntarily wish to represent himself?
I'm going to ask you a serious question: Who do you think you're kidding?
Essentially yes. He granted Manson the waiver, then after Manson's circus act, he decided Manson had proven himself incapable of understanding the consequences of that decision and revoked the waiver. Judges do this sort of thing all the time. It's called judicial discretion.
I really don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend. I think the only way you are going to get this point across is to anonymously blog it.
In this sense there is a ‘heightened’ standard for ... waiving the right to counsel,.
So, Manson was deemed fit to represent himself in a court of law, but according to you, the judge waived his right of self-representation because he later decided that Manson didn't knowingly and voluntarily wish to represent himself?
I'm going to ask you a serious question: Who do you think you're kidding?
Essentially yes. He granted Manson the waiver, then after Manson's circus act, he decided Manson had proven himself incapable of understanding the consequences of that decision and revoked the waiver. Judges do this sort of thing all the time. It's called judicial discretion.
And you know this as fact? If so, then go ahead and provide details of the judges decision. Or are you just making it up as you go along?
I really don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend. I think the only way you are going to get this point across is to anonymously blog it.
Wow, that was really witty. How long did it take you to think of that?
He has a point. It's the same sort of wilfully ignorant slant I've noticed since you started posting here:
Anonymous internet blog that's unsourced and no clue of the blogger's qualifications but supports the position you want to believe = clearly ruling, binding authority on the subject that is undisputable
Message board posts that are also unsourced but made by a poster that has just finished law school and clearly studied the subject, but contradicts the position you want to believe = clearly he's just making it up and doesn't know what he's talking about and probably lied about going to law school :roll:
Essentially yes. He granted Manson the waiver, then after Manson's circus act, he decided Manson had proven himself incapable of understanding the consequences of that decision and revoked the waiver. Judges do this sort of thing all the time. It's called judicial discretion.
And you know this as fact? If so, then go ahead and provide details of the judges decision. Or are you just making it up as you go along?
No, I don't. No more than you know for a fact that Manson had no role in the killings and his conviction was a clearly outrageous miscarriage of justice. But I do know that based on what I've seen from YOUR sources, nothing here is legally improper to the extent that the conviction should be vacated and Manson given a new trial. And it would seem that every American appellate court that has considered the matter agrees with me. Weird coincidence isn't it? People that have studied American law and graduated from a law school here all agree his conviction was proper. On the side of those who think it was a miscarriage of justice: Byrnzie, the guy who is not an American citizen and whose only experience with American criminal justice is wikipedia, and an anonymous internet blogger.
But hey, when Byrnzie makes a decision, he's right no matter who says otherwise. Doesn't matter if it's US criminal justice and the US appeals courts say he's wrong... Byrnzie knows US law better than they do :roll:
I'm never going to the doctor again. I'm sure I could get a better diagnosis from Byrnzie by describing the facts online and having him google search it. Any opinion the doctor offered to the contrary would clearly be wrong, because Byrnzie is indisputable authority on any topic he decides to have an opinion on.
He has a point. It's the same sort of wilfully ignorant slant I've noticed since you started posting here:
Anonymous internet blog that's unsourced and no clue of the blogger's qualifications
You are also unsourced and nobody has any clue of your qualifications, but that doesn't stop you pretending to have the last word on anything and everything to do with the law.
Message board posts that are also unsourced but made by a poster that has just finished law school and clearly studied the subject, but contradicts the position you want to believe = clearly he's just making it up and doesn't know what he's talking about and probably lied about going to law school :roll:
But you haven't contradicted the position I believe. I told you the Manson trial was a sham. You've said nothing to disprove that. After Nixon declared Manson guilty, the case was a foregone conclusion. Manson sought to represent himself. He was deemed fit to do so. The judge then later denied him the right of self-representation when he could have simply over-ruled his motions. The defence then stood down and failed to defend Manson and the other defendants in the trial. All of which were illegal.
Everything said by that blogger was factual. I proved that with additional sources on the limits of self-representation.
You say that it's clear that you've studied law? Funny, but nothing you've posted has made that clear.
Your only argument is that you're studying law, and that therefore everyone should accept that you know best on anything to do with the law, including on cases in which you admit to having no interest.
Anyway, you've done a great job of derailing this thread. Keep it up!
He has a point. It's the same sort of wilfully ignorant slant I've noticed since you started posting here:
Anonymous internet blog that's unsourced and no clue of the blogger's qualifications
You are also unsourced and nobody has any clue of your qualifications, but that doesn't stop you pretending to have the last word on anything and everything to do with the law.
you're kidding right? He just spent the last few years doing nothing but studying American Law and graduating from Law school. you? someone living in China with nothing more then access to Wiki and random blogs.
I think his qualifications are countless times over higher then yours. not to mention his credibility seeing how you don't think Charles Manson is a dangerous human being.
Comments
Exactly. And addressed those points repeatedly, you just don't accept the answers I've given. Manson was turning the trial into a circus, so they stopped him from representing himself and interviewing witnesses. That's within the judge's discretion, which is no doubt why his habeas appeals haven't gone anywhere. Your article argues against that, but it's totally unattributed and unsourced. There's no name from it, you won't say where you read it or who wrote it or what their qualifications are, and it makes no reference to any actual legal arguments for Manson's rights being violated, just a generic claim that his 6th amendment right was violated, ignoring the many permissible restrictions on that right (and not bothering to cite to any actual case law to support his claim that this right is absolute in any event). There's not a leg to stand on here.
You didn't address the points raised in the above article regarding Manson's right to represent himself. You used slippery tactics to avoid addressing those points. You say that it's within the judges discretion to deny someone his constitutional right to self-representation? Please explain how that is so. And you keep mentioning that the article is unattributed and unsourced. I asked you before what difference that makes. Let's for arguments sake say that the wizard of Oz wrote it. How does that alter the points raised in the article? Does the law change depending on who's discussing it, or is the law the same for everybody? You are also unsourced. Soulsinging - is that your real name? I think many people would find it a bit odd to appear in court and find themselves represented by someone called Soulsinging. As far as the 'many permissible restrictions on the 6th Amendment right to self representation', you haven't mentioned any.
Maybe you need to read it again:
'Why the "outlandish and nonsensical" motions were not simply overruled was not explained. Whatever the real reason, Keene's action violated Manson's constitutional right to defend himself. Any defense presented after that ruling (and in fact there was none) was invalid, and in direct opposition to the Sixth Amendment right to self representation.
This issue was brought up in Manson's Appeal. In that appeal the California Justices denied Manson's request for a new trial claiming that a federal ruling which affirmed the Sixth Amendment right did not apply to Manson because the decision came after his trial and "was not to be given retroactive application". This interpretation of the law was later overruled in Bittaker v. Enomoto, wherein a United States Federal Appeals Court ruled "Although California defendant's trial occurred prior to United States Supreme Court's Faretta decision confirming to state defendants the constitutional right to self-representation, denial of the California defendant's right of self-representation was a federal constitutional defect requiring setting aside of his conviction". Manson is mentioned specifically in footnote # 2 of this decision.
The right to self-representation is as fundamental and undeniable as any other right. It is every citizen's constitutional right. That is why Colin Ferguson, the seemingly deranged Long Island Railroad gunman, was allowed to defend himself at his trial. It doesn't matter if the defendant's defense may be unconventional. Self-representation is his constitutional right.
The denial of Charles Manson's right to represent himself during his trials is a fatal flaw in the legitimacy of those trials. Manson's convictions, and his present incarceration, are illegal.
Over the years Manson has filed several habeas corpus petitions with the Los Angeles County Superior Court protesting his imprisonment based on the claim that he was denied the right to defend himself. All of these petitions have been dismissed at the Superior Court level with no explanation other than that the petitioner (Manson) had failed to establish that the claims made in the petitions warranted the granting of the writ. This is a standard rubber-stamp denial. None of the legal arguments advanced in any of these writs has ever been addressed.
Now how about addressing the points I've highlighted? And try to limit the amount of standard lawyers trickery and evasion in your answers.
Actually, I did:
"The first thing you posted is totally unsourced and unattributed. The one case it mentions discusses retroactivity, NOT the actual right to counsel, which is not absolute and can (and has) been limited in certain circumstances. Not that you'll see or understand the distinction."
Have you read that case, or the footnote it touts? I have. The case says nothing about the right to counsel, it talks about retroactivity. So the absolute right to counsel is an invention of the mystery author... whose name I note you continue to refuse to disclose. Nor does s/he provide a single legal source for the statement that there is an ABSOLUTE right to counsel. I'm sure you'll consider this a bunch of legal trickery though :roll:
I'm not sure what you want from me. I've said there's no absolute right to self representation. Your article says there is, but offers no legal support for that and you continue to refuse to divulge its source. Yet you keep asking me for "proof" that you're not willing to provide yourself. Probably because you know you have none and just keep hoping I'll make a typo or something that will allow you to jump on me and shout that I'm so wrong and you're so right and Manson is so victimized. :roll:
Here, I'll help you out: there's an absolute right to self representation. Quick, trim my quote down to that and then pat yourself on the back!
You've said there's no absolute right to self representation but you haven't explained under what circumstances the 6th Amendment right to self-representation can be withdrawn, and how this was applied in the Manson case.
I also asked you what difference it makes who wrote the above article and you can't, or won't, answer me.
Did you ever notice when you go to the "official" website for the West Memphis Three.....
ONE THING stands out....
no matter what page you link on to...one thing is for certain....
you will see the words....
DONATE..
How much money collected by these people, who run this little collection to help free convicted child murderers, is actually going to help free the child murderers??? How much money is going in to their own pockets???
Just curious??
as I have said before....Show me people running a charity...or collecting money for a "cause"....
and I will show you people who are lining their own pockets with boatloads of cash.....
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
You say that the thing I posted doesn't mention the actual right to counsel. Funny that, I must be reading a different language to you:
From the article I posted:
'The right to self-representation is as fundamental and undeniable as any other right. It is every citizen's constitutional right. That is why Colin Ferguson, the seemingly deranged Long Island Railroad gunman, was allowed to defend himself at his trial. It doesn't matter if the defendant's defense may be unconventional. Self-representation is his constitutional right.
The denial of Charles Manson's right to represent himself during his trials is a fatal flaw in the legitimacy of those trials. Manson's convictions, and his present incarceration, are illegal.'
Also, you say that the 6th Amendment right to self-representation 'is not absolute and can (and has) been limited in certain circumstances'. So then why haven't you explained under what circumstances it is not applied? Why have you continually dodged this issue? Maybe it's because none of these circumstances apply to the Manson case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amen ... nstitution
'The Supreme Court expanded the right to pro se representation, holding in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the power to choose or waive counsel lies with the accused, and the state can not intrude, though it later held in Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993), that the state could deny the waiver if it believed the accused less than fully competent to adequately proceed without counsel.'
Regarding Manson's ability/competence to represent himself in court:
'Manson was examined by Joseph Ball, a former president of the California State Bar Association. Ball's assessment of Manson, presented in court on Christmas eve 1969, was that he was "an able, intelligent young man, quiet-spoken and mild-mannered. We went over different problems of law, and I found he had a ready understanding.... Remarkable understanding. As a matter of fact, he has a very fine brain. I complimented him on the fact. I think I told you that he had a high I.Q. Must have, to be able to converse as he did. And he feels that if he goes to trial and he is able to permit jurors and the Court to hear him and see him, they will realize he is not the kind of man who would perpetrate horrible crimes."
Judge Keene relented. "It is, in this Court's opinion, a sad and tragic mistake you are making by taking this course of action, but I can't talk you out ot it.... Mr. Manson, you are your own lawyer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se_leg ... ted_States
'In the United States, many state court systems and the federal courts are experiencing an increasing proportion of pro se litigants.[1] In the United States federal court system for the year 2007 approximately 27% of actions filed, 92% of prisoner petitions and 10% of non-prisoner petitions were filed by pro se litigants..
Limits
In some situations, self-represented appearances are not allowed. Generally, an owner can represent a solely owned business or partnership, but only a licensed attorney can represent a corporation. The ability of a party to proceed without an attorney in prosecuting or defending a civil action is largely a matter of state law, and may vary depending on the court and the positions of the parties. A longstanding and widely practiced rule prohibits corporations from being represented by non-attorneys, consistent with the existence of a corporation as a "person" separate and distinct from its officers and employees.[13]
"A nonlawyer may not sign and file a notice of appeal on behalf of a corporation. Requiring a lawyer to represent a corporation in filing the notice does not violate the guarantee that any suitor may prosecute or defend a suit personally. A corporation is not a natural person and does not fall with in the term “any suitor.”[14][15][16]
Another situation in which appearance through counsel is often required is in a case involving the executor or personal administrator of a probate estate. Unless the executor or administrator is himself an attorney, he is not allowed to represent himself in matters other than the probate.[17]
Few federal court of appeals allow unrepresented litigants to argue, and in all courts the percentage of cases in which argument occurs is higher for counseled cases.'
So, is the following statement from the article I posted true or not?:
'The denial of Charles Manson's right to represent himself during his trials is a fatal flaw in the legitimacy of those trials. Manson's convictions, and his present incarceration, are illegal.'
Shit man, what did I go to law school for? Apparently everything you need to know to analyze criminal trial practice in the US is wikipedia! :roll:
No, that statement is not true. The judge later rightfully revoked Manson's pro se defense when he proved himself unfit by filing nonsensical motions and disrupting the trial... the same schizophrenic behaviors that would later appear in his parole hearings. But that was all an act of course. :roll:
Unfitness. It is, as many legal issues, too complicated to explain to someone on a message board. Esp someone unwilling to believe anything that doesn't come from his own opinion first. I did point out earlier that Manson was, in the parlance of our times, acting a fool in court and so his right was revoked because it was clear he was not competent to represent himself.
What matters is that the article is utterly unsourced and cites to almost no legal authority, and what little it does is cited improperly. I suspect it's a hack non-lawyer who, like you, read the wikipedia entry on the 6th amendment and then pulled together this nonsense to post on his "Charlie Manson was innocent and cattle mutilations are on the rise" webpage. It's even possible you wrote the damn thing yourself hoping it would add some fake legitimacy to your argument. The fact that you refuse to divulge where it came from is rather telling. It's clearly not an objective, qualified legal analysis of the issue.
Sure, that old chestnut. When you're unable to provide an answer it's not because you're wrong, it's because it's too complicated for anyone but a lawyer to understand.
It's from a blog. There, happy now? And what about you? What's your legal authority? You say you went to law school. So what? You may have done, and you may not have done. You may have even flunked your course. It's all utterly irrelevant. The facts of the law don't change depending on who's discussing them. The above article/blog may have been written by Judge Judy. Or, it may have been written by Mickey Mouse, or some anonymous dude calls himself Soulsinging.
'Judge Keene, upset over some supposedly "outlandish" and "nonsensical" motions filed by Manson, vacated his status as his own attorney. Why the "outlandish and nonsensical" motions were not simply overruled was not explained. Whatever the real reason, Keene's action violated Manson's constitutional right to defend himself. Any defense presented after that ruling (and in fact there was none) was invalid, and in direct opposition to the Sixth Amendment right to self representation.'
The right to self-representation is as fundamental and undeniable as any other right. It is every citizen's constitutional right. That is why Colin Ferguson, the seemingly deranged Long Island Railroad gunman, was allowed to defend himself at his trial. It doesn't matter if the defendant's defense may be unconventional. Self-representation is his constitutional right.
I posted a list above of the limits imposed on self-representation. None of them mention 'acting a fool in court' as reason to revoke the 6th amendment right to self-representation. Manson was judged fit to represent himself. Now go ahead and dodge these points and tell us all that this is issue if far too complicated for anyone but a lawyer to understand.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. If someone is deemed competent to stand trial, then they are competent enough to represent themselves in court if they so choose.
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/36/2/261
Competency to Stand Trial and to Waive the Sixth Amendment Right to Self-Representation
'The standard of competency to represent oneself at trial is the same standard as competency to stand trial. The federal constitutional right to self-representation requires that a defendant who is competent to be tried for a crime be permitted to proceed pro se if that is the defendant's choice...
Edwards v. State, 866 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 2007), was decided on May 17, 2007, by the Indiana Supreme Court. In this case, Ahmad Edwards had been found competent to stand trial, but the court refused to allow him to represent himself at trial. Following his conviction, he appealed, contending he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. The Indiana Supreme Court acknowledged that the trial court's decision seemed reasonable; however, given that the trial court had declared him competent to stand trial, the U.S. Supreme Court precedent required that Mr. Edwards be given the right to represent himself at trial, assuming that his waiver of his right to counsel was knowing and voluntary.
The standard for competence to stand trial was established in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), which held that a defendant should have "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and have a "rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him" to be competent.
In Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the Dusky standard, overturning the Ninth Circuit's ruling that competence to waive the right to assistance of counsel requires a higher level of mental function than is needed to stand trial, holding instead that "the competence that is required of a defendant seeking to waive his right to counsel is the competence to waive the right, not the competence to represent himself" (Godinez, 509 U.S., p 399). The Court concluded that the standard of competence for waiving the right to counsel is not higher than that required to stand trial. However, it also held that "a trial court must... satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary. In this sense there is a ‘heightened’ standard for ... waiving the right to counsel, but it is not a heightened standard of competence" (Godinez, 509 U.S., pp 400–1).
I have no authority, because as I've told you, I have better things to do with my time than write a brief on the legal issues in the Manson case. I've got the bar exam to study for. And I don't do legal work unless I'm getting paid, and you can't afford me.
No, the facts and the law don't change depending on who's discussing them. But it was clear from that blog post that it was written by a layman because it had no legal merit or argument.
You might want to try reading to the end:
"Thus, the issue framed by Edwards, "... presents an opportunity to revisit the holdings of Faretta and Godinez, if the Supreme Court decides that it is to be done" (Edwards, 866 N.E.2d, p 260). However, although the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case on December 7, 2007, it plans to address only the more limited question: "May states adopt a higher standard for measuring competency to represent oneself at trial than for measuring competency to stand trial?" Nonetheless, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's past holdings that heavily weigh substantive due process for disadvantaged defendants (e.g., providing for access to counsel and expert witnesses), the Court's consideration of this case may result in some interesting opinions that will be very important for our field relative to the broader issues."
The jury's still out on this issue. The holding was from the Indiana supreme court (not binding on anyone but Indiana), was decided years after Manson's conviction, and SCOTUS has yet to take it up. The law in California is still:
"However, it also held that "a trial court must... satisfy itself that the waiver of his constitutional rights is knowing and voluntary. In this sense there is a ‘heightened’ standard for ... waiving the right to counsel, but it is not a heightened standard of competence" (Godinez, 509 U.S., pp 400–1)."
As I said, it's to the discretion of the trial court judge. It's been reviewed endlessly by appellate courts who have affirmed that trial judge's decision.
Soul, you are clearly outmatched on this one. not only does he have access to Wiki, now you have "Blogs" to contend with. you are out of your element on this one buddy.
and least not forgot buddy, you are also dealing with a person who when asked if Charles Manson is dangerous the answer is.....ready for it.....Maybe
I give you credit for wasting more then 30 seconds debating this topic with someone with such misguiding beliefs.
Apparently I will do anything to avoid studying for the bar, including slam my head repeatedly against something that makes a brick wall look reasonable
You know what's in my bank account then? Fuck me, you really do believe that you're omniscient don't you? Is that what studying law does to a person?
A layman who's legal merit and argument you've been unable to disprove.
So, Manson was deemed fit to represent himself in a court of law, but according to you, the judge waived his right of self-representation because he later decided that Manson didn't knowingly and voluntarily wish to represent himself?
I'm going to ask you a serious question: Who do you think you're kidding?
You forgot to praise his innocence.
I've just finished watching the documentary 'Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills'. One thing that stood out was the incident of the black man found covered in blood and mud hanging about in a nearby restaurant at the time of the murders.
From Wiki:
"Mr. Bojangles"
'Sighting of a possible black male suspect was implied during the beginnings of the trial, at which time the possibility of conviction of the initial suspects seemed slim. According to local West Memphis police officers, during the evening of May 5, 1993, at 8:42 pm, workers in the Bojangles' restaurant about a mile from the crime scene (a direct route through the bayou where the children were found) in Robin Hood Hills reported seeing an African American male "dazed and covered with blood and mud" inside the ladies' room of the restaurant. Defense attorneys later referred to this man as "Mr. Bojangles."[5]
The man was bleeding from his arm and had brushed against the walls. The man had defecated on himself on the floor. The police were called, but the man left the scene. Officer Regina Meeks responded (by inquiring at the drive through window) about 45 minutes later. By then, the man had left and police did not enter or examine the bloodstained bathroom on May 5.[citations needed]
The following day, when the victims were found, Bojangles' manager Marty King, thinking there was a possible connection between the bloody, disoriented man and the killings, called police twice to inform them of his suspicions. After the second telephone call police gathered evidence from the restroom.[10] Police wore the same shoes and clothes from the Robin Hood Woods crime scene into the Bojangles restaurant bathroom. Police detective Bryn Ridge later stated he lost the blood scrapings taken from the walls and tiles of the bathroom.[11] A hair identified as belonging to an African American was later recovered from a sheet which had been used to wrap one of the victims.[4]
Call me naive, but is the sight of someone "dazed and covered with blood and mud" slouching around a restaurant something that happens regularly in West Memphis?
And then to add to this the fact that the incident occurred near to the site of a triple murder and was then not properly investigated - the police lost the blood samples e.t.c, makes it hardly surprising that the police were then desperate to pin the murders on anyone they could find in order to cover up their own gross incompetence.
No evidence linking the 3 defendants to the murders was ever presented. Echols and Baldwin were convicted because Damien Echols wore black clothes, listened to Metallica, and had an interest in the occult. Also, according to Jivepuppy.com Echol's is also alleged to have had some mental problems earlier in his life.
So that's justice, Memphis style.
Edit: I'm now going to watch 'Paradise Lost 2: Revelations'. Has anyone else here seen these two documentaries?
Here's the torrent if anyone's interested: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3460648 ... evelations
It's got nothing to do with your bank account. I wouldn't work for you for any price.
I can't disprove something that hasn't been proven. That's my point. I didn't disprove it, because all the guy did was say "the 6th amendment right to self-representation is absolute and Manson should be set free!" That's not proof. That's a statement, akin to me saying "it isn't, and he shouldn't." And as I've said, I've no interest in wasting my time doing legal research to brief the Charles Manson case for you. So yeah, I guess you win. You pwned me dude. You're like the internet's version of Chuck Norris. Kick ass man.
Aww, I'm really sad to hear that.
You feeling o.k? Not uptight or bitter about anything?
Essentially yes. He granted Manson the waiver, then after Manson's circus act, he decided Manson had proven himself incapable of understanding the consequences of that decision and revoked the waiver. Judges do this sort of thing all the time. It's called judicial discretion.
I'm gonna go with 'musicismylife78' here on this board and say that I think this Terry Hobbs character may well be the man.
The latest forensic evidence points to Terry Hobbs. And after watching the two documentaries back to back, and looking out for him in these films, something about him didn't seem quite right.
And Speedy, I recommend that you watch these films. Damien Echols strikes me as anything but a sick piece of human garbage.
I really don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend. I think the only way you are going to get this point across is to anonymously blog it.
Wow, that was really witty. How long did it take you to think of that?
And you know this as fact? If so, then go ahead and provide details of the judges decision. Or are you just making it up as you go along?
He has a point. It's the same sort of wilfully ignorant slant I've noticed since you started posting here:
Anonymous internet blog that's unsourced and no clue of the blogger's qualifications but supports the position you want to believe = clearly ruling, binding authority on the subject that is undisputable
Message board posts that are also unsourced but made by a poster that has just finished law school and clearly studied the subject, but contradicts the position you want to believe = clearly he's just making it up and doesn't know what he's talking about and probably lied about going to law school :roll:
No, I don't. No more than you know for a fact that Manson had no role in the killings and his conviction was a clearly outrageous miscarriage of justice. But I do know that based on what I've seen from YOUR sources, nothing here is legally improper to the extent that the conviction should be vacated and Manson given a new trial. And it would seem that every American appellate court that has considered the matter agrees with me. Weird coincidence isn't it? People that have studied American law and graduated from a law school here all agree his conviction was proper. On the side of those who think it was a miscarriage of justice: Byrnzie, the guy who is not an American citizen and whose only experience with American criminal justice is wikipedia, and an anonymous internet blogger.
But hey, when Byrnzie makes a decision, he's right no matter who says otherwise. Doesn't matter if it's US criminal justice and the US appeals courts say he's wrong... Byrnzie knows US law better than they do :roll:
I'm never going to the doctor again. I'm sure I could get a better diagnosis from Byrnzie by describing the facts online and having him google search it. Any opinion the doctor offered to the contrary would clearly be wrong, because Byrnzie is indisputable authority on any topic he decides to have an opinion on.
You are also unsourced and nobody has any clue of your qualifications, but that doesn't stop you pretending to have the last word on anything and everything to do with the law.
But you haven't contradicted the position I believe. I told you the Manson trial was a sham. You've said nothing to disprove that. After Nixon declared Manson guilty, the case was a foregone conclusion. Manson sought to represent himself. He was deemed fit to do so. The judge then later denied him the right of self-representation when he could have simply over-ruled his motions. The defence then stood down and failed to defend Manson and the other defendants in the trial. All of which were illegal.
Everything said by that blogger was factual. I proved that with additional sources on the limits of self-representation.
You say that it's clear that you've studied law? Funny, but nothing you've posted has made that clear.
Your only argument is that you're studying law, and that therefore everyone should accept that you know best on anything to do with the law, including on cases in which you admit to having no interest.
Anyway, you've done a great job of derailing this thread. Keep it up!
you're kidding right? He just spent the last few years doing nothing but studying American Law and graduating from Law school. you? someone living in China with nothing more then access to Wiki and random blogs.
I think his qualifications are countless times over higher then yours. not to mention his credibility seeing how you don't think Charles Manson is a dangerous human being.