Monday, May 15, 2023

Should I Represent Myself In Criminal Court?

People who choose to represent themselves in court are sometimes called "self-represented litigants" (SRLs), or "pro pers" (from the Latin, "In Propia Persona" -- "for himself").  

There are plenty of legal issues that don't necessarily require attorneys.  Small Claims Court, for example, is intentionally designed to be as simple and straightforward as possible, so that individuals can resolve minor civil disputes without the cost of lawyers.  In restraining order hearings, about half of the parties are usually represented by professionals.  Evictions, name changes, emancipations, uncontested divorces and simple traffic infractions can all usually be resolved DIY, if you don't mind performing your own research and spending a few mornings in court.  Criminal law, on the other hand, is not one of these areas.  

The 6th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to counsel of one's choice.  That includes the right to act as your own counsel.  Just because you have the right to do something, though, doesn't always mean that you should.  Representing yourself in criminal court is a terrible idea and there is really no good reason to attempt it.  The stakes are too high and the game is too complicated.  Abraham Lincoln even supposedly said, "Whoever represents himself has a fool for a client."  

In any criminal case, the prosecutor is a highly-trained professional.  This person graduated from law school, passed the bar exam, received extensive on-the-job training, and has experience conducting many, many jury trials before yours.  The prosecutor understands the rules of evidence, how to effectively examine a witness, how to make compelling opening / closing statements, and how to properly object if you attempt to inject some inappropriate argument.  This person is trying to convict you and possibly send you to jail.  Without a robust defense, the prosecutor will run wild on you.  

As your own attorney, you will be expected to comply with all the same rules and procedures as the professional prosecutor.  The judge will not grant you any slack or give you any extra time to prepare.  The court will also not give you any legal advice or assistance.  

Even lawyers don't represent themselves when they get into trouble; they hire other lawyers.  The dangers of self-representation are not limited to the defendant's lack of knowledge or experience.  Acting as your own lawyer is so hazardous because it's difficult to analyze your own case objectively.  Emotion will cloud your judgment.  You will see the evidence through your own prism and you may fall into the trap of assuming that the jury sees it the same way.  Tunnel vision can distort your perspective and distract from the important issues.  A disinterested set of eyes can review the facts and help craft a narrative that serves your defense more effectively.  

Cost is not a compelling reason to represent yourself in criminal court.  Among other things, part of an attorney's job is to help the client avoid or reduce expensive fines and restitution.  Sometimes, we can even pay for ourselves by saving the client more than our fee.  Our firm is very flexible with payment plans, and most other local law offices will work to accommodate almost anyone's budget.  If money is really an issue, though, the Public Defender will represent a defendant at no cost.  The Orange County Public Defender's Office has an outstanding reputation and their attorneys are all very capable.  Any defendant would have much better prospects in the hands of the OCPD than in representing himself.  

Finally, if you represent yourself and you do a terrible job, you cannot sue for malpractice or complain about "ineffective assistance of counsel" on appeal.  You have nobody to blame but yourself.  

I have never seen anyone successfully represent him or herself in criminal court.  I love to sit in and watch these cases when I have time, but it's kind of like seeing a professional boxer spar with an elderly, disabled person.  The prosecutor sticks and moves effortlessly around the ring, while the hapless defendant argues with the judge and stumbles through waves of objections.  

A pro per trial is scheduled to start at the Fullerton Courthouse on 6/12/23, and I plan to observe part of it.  A local woman is accused of various traffic infractions.  After being stopped, she allegedly tore up the ticket, resisted the police and slapped an officer.  I will post a summary here, so check back for updates. 

If you or a loved one has questions about a criminal case, call for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.  

Thanks for reading. 

Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney 

Updated 6/14/23:  Well, that was quick.  The pro per trial in the Fullerton Courthouse (mentioned above) went exactly as I predicted -- it was an unmitigated disaster for the defendant.  Throughout the 2-day trial, she argued with the judge and bumbled through an onslaught of objections.  She repeatedly attempted to inject improper arguments and referred to matters that had been expressly excluded.  Her "evidence" was deemed inadmissible and the judge repeatedly warned her about her decorum.  Inexplicably, and on more than one occasion, she attempted to cite the historical case of "Marbury v. Madison" (1803), which famously established the doctrine of "judicial review" (the idea that courts have the power to declare various laws unconstitutional -- a bedrock of the American justice system, but utterly irrelevant in this case).  

To recap, this case involved some traffic tickets and one woman's refusal to simply sign the citation.  According to the arresting officer, the defendant tore up the ticket, threw it onto the ground, refused his commands, and slapped him.  The jury deliberated for less than an hour before returning "guilty" verdicts on all counts.  The defendant was immediately remanded into the custody of the sheriff. 

Sentencing was scheduled for this morning.  The judge also set the case for an "Order to Show Cause re: Contempt" -- a hearing to determine whether or not the defendant should be additionally punished for her repeated failures to comply with the court's rules during the trial.  Bail was set at $15,000.  Defendant posted bond and was released overnight.  

Judge Thompson sentenced the defendant to serve 20 days in jail, but allowed her to apply for house arrest.  He also set her fines at $2,377.47, ordered her to complete 8 hours of trash pick-up and placed her on informal probation for one year.  He set sanctions at $100 for her repeated violations of court decorum. 

No comments:

Post a Comment