Faretta v. California

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Anthony Faretta v. State of California
ArgueDate=November 19
ArgueYear=1974
DecideDate=June 30
DecideYear=1975
FullName=Anthony Faretta v. State of California
USVol=422
USPage=806
Citation=422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 83 (1975)
Prior=On writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District
Subsequent=
Holding=A criminal defendant in a state proceeding has a constitutional right to knowingly refuse the aid of an attorney. Judgment vacated.
SCOTUS=1972-1975
Majority=Stewart
JoinMajority=Douglas, Brennan, White, Marshall, and Powell
Concurrence=
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=Burger
JoinDissent=Blackman, Rehnquist
Dissent2=Blackman
JoinDissent2=Burger, Rehnquist
LawsApplied=

"Faretta v. California", 422 U.S. 806 (1975) [ [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=422&page=806 422 U.S. 806] Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.] , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.

The defendant Anthony Faretta was accused of grand theft in Los Angeles County, California. Well before trial the defendant requested permission to represent himself at trial. After an admonition, the court granted his request, but later reversed the ruling and required a public defender to conduct the trial on the defendant's behalf. The jury found the defendant guilty, and the judgment was affirmed by the intermediate appellate court, and the California Supreme Court denied review.

The United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari. In an opinion by Justice Stewart, the Court held that a defendant in a state criminal trial has the constitutional right to refuse appointed counsel and conduct the trial when he or she voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so. However, such a defendant may not later complain that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Dissents

Justice Blackmun wrote a dissent where he questioned the additional procedural problems that would inevitably arise by the decision, arguing that such procedural problems would far outweigh whatever tactical advantage the defendant may feel he has gained by electing to represent himself. Blackmun concludes with the following: "If there is any truth to the old proverb 'one who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,' the Court by its opinion today now bestows a "constitutional" right on one to make a fool of himself."

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 422
* List of criminal competencies
* "Frendak v. United States"

References