ILNews

High court rules on self-representation issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's ruling that a defendant who was competent enough to stand trial wasn't competent to represent himself at trial, an issue on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Ahmad Edwards v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-0705-CR-202, the justices unanimously agreed the denial of Ahmad Edward's request to act pro se at his criminal trial didn't violate his federal or state constitutional right to self-representation. Edwards wanted to represent himself at his second trial, when he was convicted of attempted murder and battery. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court.

The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the state's Supreme Court's judgment, holding that the federal Constitution permits judges to take a realistic account of the particular defendant's mental capacities and allows states to insist upon counsel for those competent enough to stand trial under Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), but not represent themselves.

On remand, the Indiana Supreme Court had to determine whether the trial court found Edwards suffered from a severe mental illness such that he wasn't competent to conduct trial proceedings on his own and if the record supports this. Edwards had three mental competency determinations over the course of three years.

Justice Theodore Boehm wrote the Indiana Supreme Court had two alternatives: resolve the issue before them or remand for a hearing in which the issue is Edwards' mental illness as of December 2005 when his second trial was held. The justices concluded the trial court's findings and body of evidence available at the trial court's consideration took away any need for a retrospective competency hearing.

Although there is conflicting evidence as to whether or not Edwards was competent or if his mental illness was improving, the Supreme Court had to consider his competency when he wanted to represent himself in 2005 at trial. The psychiatric evaluations of Edwards sometimes disagree, but they overwhelmingly confirm that he suffered from severe and pervasive mental illness, Justice Boehm wrote. As such the evidence and circumstances support the trial court finding he wasn't competent enough to stand trial.

The Supreme Court also examined Edwards' claim under Article I, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution and concluded the right to self-representation of mentally impaired persons under Section 13 is no broader than that guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment, wrote the justice.

Although the Indiana constitution states the accused has the right "to be heard by himself" and doesn't express a preference for whether the defendant or counsel should take the steps to be heard, the justices ruled the accused's right "to be heard by himself" isn't an unlimited right to conduct all trial proceedings on his or her own.

The high court also declined - as the state requested - to adopt a Section 13 standard allowing courts to "deny a criminal defendant the right to represent himself at trial where the defendant cannot communicate coherently with the court or jury."

"The federal constitution establishes rights that the states may choose to expand, but the Supremacy Clause precludes any state doctrine that restricts a federal constitutional right," wrote Justice Boehm. "Edwards describes a limitation on the general federal constitutional right to self-representation, and the Supreme Court expressed uncertainty as to how the State's proposal would 'work in practice' and declined to adopt it as a federal standard."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT