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.
Representing yourself is called acting pro se. Pro Se is a Latin phrase that means "for yourself." [10] [11] Connecticut: Connecticut Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 a 4 "A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law" [12] Delaware: Constitution ...
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.
California (1975), the court held that a criminal defendant has the right to knowingly and voluntarily opt for pro se representation at trial. [67] This right is not per se violated by the appointment of standby counsel. [68] There is no constitutional right to self-representation on appeal. [69]
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 United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding criminal procedure, including: Article Three, along with Amendments Five, Six, Eight, and Fourteen. Such cases have come to comprise a substantial portion of the Supreme Court 's docket.
A clause of the amendment, which passed into the Constitution in 1868, bans those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office ...
Gideon overruled Betts, holding that the assistance of counsel, if desired by a defendant who could not afford to hire counsel, was a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, binding on the states, and essential for a fair trial and due process of law regardless of the circumstances of the case. The Court explained its rationale ...