Source: http://www.asbar.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1002:american-samoa-govt-pene-v&catid=61&Itemid=254
Timestamp: 2018-01-23 04:25:22
Document Index: 116537515

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 1', '§ 6', 'art. 1', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31']

American Samoa Gov’t; Pene v. :: Welcome to American Samoa Bar Association ::
HomePrivacy & TermsCasesSecond-Series12ASR2dAmerican Samoa Gov’t; Pene v.
SEIGAFOLAVA R. PENE, Appellant
AP No. 22-88
There is no fixed formula for determining when the right to a speedy trial has been violated; each case must be determined on its own facts. Rev'd Const. Am. Samoa, art. 1 § 6.
Relevant factors in determining if right to speedy trial violated include the length of delay, the reasons for the delay, whether defendant demanded trial, and the prejudice to defendant resulting from delay. Rev'd Const. Am. Samoa, art. 1 § 6.
Defendant's right to speedy trial was not violated, even though the delay was over a year and a prompt trial had been demanded, where the reasons for the delay were substantial, including the need to entertain and grant motions to quash many subpoenas inappropriately issued by defendant and also to conduct competency examinations; and where defendant was not substantially prejudiced by the delay, as he was not incarcerated and the documentary nature of the evidence minimized the danger of fading memories. Rev'd Const. Am. Samoa, art. I § 6.
Defendant's right to assistance of counsel was not violated where he chose to represent himself and on appeal presented no evidence that such choice was involuntary or that he was unaware of attendant risks.
Defendant is free to represent himself at any stage of criminal proceedings, including competency hearings. [12ASR2d44]
That criminal defendant's case would almost certainly have been better conducted by a lawyer does not free the defendant from the consequences of his choice to represent himself; he is not entitled first to insist on his right to defend himself and then to insist that his conviction must be reversed because his defense was less than competent.
While "practice of law" is a general term, it is sufficiently definite that its employment in a criminal statute satisfies the demands of due process. A.S.C.A. § 31.0104.
"Practice of law" includes legal representation of another in court or in settlement negotiations with opposing attorneys. A.S.C.A. § 31.0104.
Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of unauthorized practice of law where it was established that appellant filed a memorandum in a criminal case containing legal argument offered on behalf of the defendant. A.S.C.A. § 31.0104.
Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of unauthorized practice of law where appellant had written letters on behalf of a convicted prisoner slating that defendant was prepared to bring a civil action on behalf of the prisoner "pro se," and proposing a settlement which defendant termed "my personal offer and compromise." A.S.C.A. § 31.0104.
Before CANBY ,* Acting Associate Justice, THOMPSON ,** Acting Associate Justice, OLO, Associate Judge, and VAIVAO, Associate Judge.
For Appellee, Jerry Williams, Assistant Attorney General
1. Because appellant has not been sentenced to imprisonment, the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution would not have required counsel to be appointed even in the absence of a waiver. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 40 (1972).