enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Pro se legal representation (/ ˌ p r oʊ ˈ s iː / or / ˌ p r oʊ ˈ s eɪ /) means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney. The term pro se comes from Latin pro se, meaning "for oneself" or ...

  3. List of U.S. state constitutional provisions allowing self ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._State...

    Supreme Court Tassian v. People, 731 P.2d 672 (Colo. 20 January 1987) "The chief judge's directive at issue here clearly discriminates against pro se litigants solely on the basis of their pro se status and, in that respect, lacks any rational basis in fact and thus violates equal protection of the laws" [8] Colorado

  4. Faretta v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faretta_v._California

    Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), 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.

  5. Introducing The Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s - AOL

    www.aol.com/introducing-posner-center-justice...

    “Representing oneself in court is often the best way for a pro se to obtain justice,” Posner said in news release. “Unlike judges, juries tend to be impressed by a lone litigant standing up ...

  6. Assistance of Counsel Clause - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistance_of_Counsel_Clause

    California Court of Appeals, 528 U.S. 152 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled the right to pro se representation did not apply to appellate courts. In Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), the Court ruled that a criminal defendant could be simultaneously competent to stand trial and yet not competent to represent himself. The Court ultimately ...

  7. Indiana v. Edwards - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_v._Edwards

    The Court had recognized these two rights on competency for some time. In Dusky v.United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), and in Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975), the Court established the standard for competency to stand trial—the defendant must have a "rational and factual understanding" of the nature of the proceedings, and must be able to rationally assist his lawyer in defending him.

  8. California (1975), the Court held that a criminal defendant has the right to knowingly and voluntarily opt for pro se representation at trial. [137] This right is not per se violated by the appointment of standby counsel. [138] There is no constitutional right to self-representation on appeal. [139]

  9. AOL Mail

    mail.aol.com/?icid=aol.com-nav

    Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!