tranquility
Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
What's your guess as to how the case came out from this factual summary by Judge Silverman at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/06/08-10147.pdf :
What's your guess as to how the case came out from this factual summary by Judge Silverman at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/06/08-10147.pdf :
I'm thinking the appellate panel has heard the saying about one who represents himself.Defendants Kurt F. Johnson and Dale Scott Heineman were indicted for conspiracy and multiple counts of mail fraud related to their illegitimate debt-elimination business. They were adamant in their desire to represent themselves and assert an absurd legal theory wrapped up in Uniform Commercial Code gibberish. Both defendants were examined by a psychiatrist and found to have no diagnosable mental disorder Thereafter, the district court conducted Faretta hearings spanning several days in which the defendants were extensively advised of their right to counsel and the disadvantages of self-representation. The judge practically begged them to accept counsel but they refused. The district court found that the defendants were competent to represent themselves and that such was their constitutional right. Defendants now contend that Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), decided by the Supreme Court after their trial concluded, required the district court to terminate their self-representation because of what they describe as their “nonsensical” legal “antics” after the trial began. They say they may have been competent to stand trial but not to represent themselves.
The record clearly shows that the defendants are fools, but that is not the same as being incompetent. Under both Faretta and Edwards, they had the right to represent themselves and go down in flames if they wished, a right the district court was required to respect. There was no legal or medical basis to foist a lawyer on them against their will.