No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Faretta v. California (1975), courts have generally permitted defendants to represent themselves, as long as they are competent to do so. The problem lies in the definition of competency to waive counsel, which has been vaguely defined by the courts. Little is known about the €requency of, or reasons for, attempts to waive counsel, about the process offorensic evaluation of such competency, and about the success of such attempts. The authors briefly review the case law on competency to waive representation, report on a longitudinal prospective study of these issues in a population of defendants referred to an inpatient forensic facility for evaluation of all types of competency related to their criminal prosecutions, and discuss the significance of the issue for forensic clinicians. A key question for courts, lawyers, and clinicians is whether a competency evaluation can be invoked to overcome a defendant's constitutional rights to self-representation and bail.There is a large clinical and legal literature concerning the general construct of competency to stand trial, but little addressing more specific (but less frequently raised) situations in which defendants wish to waive certain rights guaranteed under the criminal law.In particular, there are no articles on competency to waive counsel in the clinical/ forensic literature, and few articles on the subject in the legal literature. The articles which do exist provide little insight into the reasons why defendants might want to refuse the assistance of attorneys and choose to represent themselves. The relevant issues for forensic evaluators have not been studied, and the impact of a finding of incompetency to refuse counsel (or even of the evaluation process itself) have not been examined. As part of an ongoing study of competency in the criminal justice system, this article is designed to begin the process of such examination, by providing a case review, raw data (both prospective and retrospective) on the circumstances leading to such evaluation, the process itself, and the outcomes of such evaluations.

No abstract