A Fool for a Client: Competency Standards in Pro Se Cases

I. INTRODUCTION "[A] lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."1 While the old adage may be true, it fails to address the situation where the person invoking the right to self-representation lacks competency. Unfortunately, courts have not elucidated standards to decide whether a pro se defendant is competent to represent himself. Instead, the Supreme Court recognized competency as a limitation on the right of self-representation without giving guidance to courts on how to implement the new limitation. The Sixth Amendment protects criminal defendants by ensuring that the accused "shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."2 Indeed, "[t]he Sixth Amendment includes a compact statement of the rights necessary to a full defense."3 Further, the Supreme Court found that the rights embodied in the Sixth Amendment imply a right for a criminal defendant to personally "make his defense," which includes the right of self-representation.4 Not only does the Constitution protect defendants at trial, but the Constitution also protects defendants before trial by prohibiting states from subjecting individuals to a trial if they lack capacity to use their Sixth Amendment rights.5 Thus, if a judge suspects a defendant lacks the capacity to proceed at trial, the judge should suspend the trial until the defendant fully gains the ability to use his Sixth Amendment rights.6 If a judge does determine a defendant is not competent to stand trial, a judge may commit the defendant until the defendant regains his capacity to use his Sixth Amendment rights.7 While examining the capacity of a defendant generally ensures that the defendant can use most of his or her Sixth Amendment rights, courts have failed to critically examine capacity when a defendant invokes the right to self-representation.8 In 2008, the Supreme Court decided Indiana v. Edwards, which dealt with the issue of competency in a pro se trial.9 The Court concluded that a state may impose counsel upon a defendant that invokes the right of self-representation when the defendant is not competent to do so.10 However, the Court failed to provide lower courts with guidelines on the level of competency necessary for a pro se litigant. The Ninth Circuit adopted the holding of Edwards in United States v. Ferguson, remanding the case to the district court without clear guidance on how to conduct a competency hearing in this situation.11 This Note explains the competing rights between self-representation and competency to stand trial, and examines Indiana v. Edwards to see how die Supreme Court resolved diese competing rights. Next, the Note will briefly describe the Ninth Circuit's first attempt to implement Edwards, followed by an explanation of the need to limit the right of self-representation when the defendant is not competent. Finally, this Note will propose standards that judges should use when evaluating the competency of a defendant invoking the right to self-representation. II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Before the Supreme Court decided Indiana v. Edwards, Ferguson was arrested and tried on charges of child pornography and molestation.12 Ferguson objected to his court appointed counsel on the grounds that neither attorney would fulfill his "six duties": One, request that the judge issue me the appearance bond so that I may enter a plea; two, not to argue the facts; three, request the judge close all accounts; four, request the judge waive all public charges by the exemption in accordance to public policy; and, five, request the judge present me with the order of the court; and, six, request the judge release me.13 Further, the defendant continuously relied on the Uniform Commercial Code as a defense.14 As the trial grew closer, the defendant requested diat he be able to represent himself because his lawyers failed to complete his "six duties. …