Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
67. Should the appellate court grant the defendant's request?
The defendant did not raise the subject again, and he represented himself at trial. After hearing overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, the jury convicted him of armed robbery. On appeal, the defendant has requested a new trial on the ground that he was deprived of his right to counsel.
At a pretrial hearing, the defendant told the judge that he was unhappy with the public defender who had been appointed to represent him and that he wanted the judge to appoint another lawyer. The judge refused to appoint another lawyer, telling the defendant, with no further explanation, that his only other choice was to represent himself. The defendant said that he would represent himself at trial then, as «anything [was] better than having this lawyer.»
A defendant was charged with armed robbery. The defendant had only an eighth-grade education and no legal knowledge.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
D is correct. The court did not inquire whether the defendant had the knowledge necessary to represent himself or the understanding of what the undertaking would entail, or any rights he may have been waiving. Therefore, the defendant's waiver was not knowing or intelligent, rendering it involuntary. The appellate court should grant the defendant's request on those grounds. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
A is incorrect. A voluntary waiver of the right to counsel must be knowing and intelligent. In this case, the defendant's waiver was neither knowing nor intelligent. The court did not offer the defendant any explanation about the proceedings, nor did it inquire if the defendant was capable of defending himself or inform him of the rights he was waiving. Therefore, the defendant did not voluntarily waive his right to counsel.
B is incorrect. The harmless error rule states that any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. In this case, however, the court's error affected the defendant's right to counsel, which is a substantial right. Therefore, this was not harmless error.
C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The court did not make the effort to establish whether the defendant was capable of effectively representing himself. The defendant may have been capable of proceeding on his own behalf, but it was an error for the court not to establish that the waiver was valid.