Self-representation at Trial

The issue comes up occasionally of the military accused who wants to represent himself - pro se-cute himself.

SCOTUS Blog reminds us that the Supreme Court may give some guidance on the issue of how mentally competent, if at all, must the accused be.

On March 26, the court will hear oral argument in Indiana v. Edwards (07-208)– testing the standard to be used on mental competency when an accused person seeks to act as his own lawyer at trial. The federal government supports the state of Indiana and argues in its brief that a mentally ill defendant may be denied the right of self-representation “if the trial court determines through an appropriately particularized analysis that his conduct of the trial would frustrate important governmental interests.”

Just one military example: United States v. Mix, 35 M.J. 283 (C.M.A. 1992)(We hold that appellant was competent to proceed pro se and that the military judge's inquiry and advice were sufficient to ensure a clear and unequivocal waiver by appellant, who functioned very effectively as his own advocate.). In this case,

The military judge directed the convening authority to inquire into appellant's mental responsibility and competence to conduct his own defense. About 1 month later a sanity board consisting of two psychiatrists and a psychologist concluded that "the accused has sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings and to conduct or cooperate intelligently in the defense -- although he may choose not to do so."