Faretta V. California Case Brief

1087 Words3 Pages

Case Report
 Title and Citation: Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) Type of Action: Competency to Stand Trial Facts of the Case: “The defendant Anthony Faretta was accused of grand theft in Los Angeles, CA. Prior to the trial, the defendant requested permission to represent himself” (Gardner, 2000). Mr. Faretta stated that he had once represented himself in a criminal case and that he believed that his court order attorney could not efficiently advise him due to other priorities. Contentions of the Parties: Mr. Faretta challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the Appellate District, stating he had no constitutional right to represent himself at his criminal trial. Issue: Can the state constitutionally impose counsel …show more content…

Furthermore, the state could not constitutionally force a counsel upon the accused. Therefore, Mr. Faretta was exercising his constitutional right in waiving assistance of counsel. Reasoning: The Court held that Mr. Faretta has the constitutional right to refuse appointed counsel. However, he may not complain later that he received inadequate assistance of and to legal counsel. Rule of Law: “The right of self-representation finds support in the structure of the Sixth Amendment, an informed and intelligent defendant who decides to waive his right to counsel has the constitutional right to represent himself” (LSCB, 2013). After all, the defendant, and not his lawyer or the State, will bear the personal consequences of a conviction. References: Gardner, Martin R. (2000). The Sixth Amendment right to counsel and its underlying values: defining the scope of privacy protection. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Law School Case Briefs | Legal Outlines | Study Materials. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2014.http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/11/faretta-v-california-case-brief.html Case Report
 Title and Citation: M 'Naghten 's Case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718, SEng Rep. 722 …show more content…

According to my research, to prove this type of case, one must have some type of mental, cognitive, or emotional defect during the act of the criminal offense. Rule of Law: Insanity must be proven under some type of mental or emotional defect caused by disease. References: M’Naghten’s Case | Casebriefs. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2014. http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-law/criminal-law-keyed-to-kadish/exculpation/mnaghtens-case/ Case Report
 Title and Citation: Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452 (1982) Type of Action: Right to Treatment Facts of the Case: A mentally retarded man was involuntarily committed to a hospital. Contentions of the Parties: Family was concerned with safety and living conditions of the hospital. Also, they wanted him free from bodily restraints and a constitutional right to sufficient skill development programs offered within the facility. Issue: His constitutional rights still need to be upheld, because basic human needs supersede his mental

More about Faretta V. California Case Brief

Open Document