West Memphis Three

Byrnzie wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

soulsinging wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

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.

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

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.

Byrnzie wrote:

You can talk shit all day long. What you still haven't done is explain how the limits on self-representation were applied in the Manson case. You merely throw in a hypothesis and expect everyone to swallow it whilst humbling themselves before your clear grasp of some arcane knowledge too far removed for any normal person to grasp.
I call bullshit.

I posted the details of the limits on self-representation above. None of them support the fact that Manson had his 6th amendment right removed:

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...'

If he was fit to stand trial then he was fit to represent himself.

*enter Soulsinging stage left repeating how he's currently studying at law school and still awaiting a round of applause*

I've addressed this already. You ignored it. Go back and read. That is not the law, and was certainly not the law in California at the time of trial.

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

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.

That's my point. Yet you assume the other guy is 100% accurate because he agrees with you, and assume I am lying and making things up because I disagree with you.

I am not the last word. But the appeals court is and the appeals court has agreed with my position, multiple times.

Lastly, I don't have to prove shit. The burden of proof is on the appellant to establish their case. But I'm sure you already knew that, what with your extensive experience in American criminal appellate practice. The appellee only has the burden of rebutting the arguments of the appealing party, which I've done. I can assure you, you have to have a VERY powerful and persuasive argument to even merit an opinion denying your appeal from an appellate court. You don't. Which is why the appeals court has summarily denied all of Manson's petitions.

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

I've addressed this already. You ignored it. Go back and read. That is not the law, and was certainly not the law in California.

'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.'

You know, reposting and highlighting the same things 15 times is not going to make them more persuasive. I've read that footnote. It says nothing substantive about Manson, just that they're not going to consider anything to do with Manson because the case isn't about Manson. It SOUNDS pretty good though, which is why you're beating it like a dead horse.