Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
A defendant who is competent to stand trial is therefore also competent to plead guilty, waiving the full panoply of trial rights, [161] but not necessarily competent enough to represent herself at trial in the face of a state procedural rule requiring a higher standard of competence for pro se representation. [162] Prosecutorial misconduct
Self-representation includes certain specific rights for a defendant to have his opinion heard. "The pro se defendant must be allowed to control the organization and content of his own defense, to make motions, to argue points of law, to participate in voir dire, to question witnesses, and to address the court and the jury at appropriate points ...
A criminal defendant may represent himself, unless a court deems the defendant to be incompetent to waive the right to counsel. In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the Supreme Court recognized a defendant's right to pro se representation. However, under Godinez v.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
As stated in Brewer v.Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the right to counsel "means at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, 'whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. ' " [2] Brewer goes on to conclude that once adversarial proceedings have begun ...
The Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s has a bold vision: to provide pro bono representation, but also to focus on assisting pro se litigants behind the scenes to help them to successfully ...
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.