Facts of the Case
Anthony Pasquall Faretta was charged with grand theft. He filed a request to represent himself in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The judge initially accepted the request, but later called Faretta back in to question him about his knowledge of the hearsay rule and other court procedures. Based on Faretta’s answers, the judge determined that Faretta did not intelligently and knowingly waive his right to counsel and the judge appointed a public defender. The jury convicted Faretta. On appeal, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court judge’s ruling that Faretta had no constitutional right to represent himself. The California Supreme Court denied review.
Questions
Can a defendant be denied the right to present his own defense and be forced to accept representation by counsel?
Conclusions
-
No. Justice Potter Stewart, writing for a 6-3 majority, vacated the state court judgment and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held that a defendant in a state criminal trial has the constitutional right to defend himself when he voluntarily and intelligently wants to do so. In this case, Faretta was deprived of that constitutional right. Farretta’s knowledge of the hearsay rule and court procedure was irrelevant to whether he voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger dissented, arguing that the Constitution provides no basis for a right to self-representation. Justice Harry A. Blackmun and Justice William H. Rehnquist joined in the dissent. Justice Blackmun wrote a separate dissent, arguing that the text of the Sixth Amendment does not support the right to self-representation, and such a right will lead to procedural confusion without providing any benefit to the accused. Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist joined in the dissent.