Opinion ID: 381252
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alford and Faretta

Text: 28 The government urges this court to reshape the Whalem rule in light of North Carolina v. Alford 69 and California v. Faretta. 70 Neither case involved an insanity issue, 71 and for that reason alone their relevance is de minimus. When a criminal defendant's sanity is subject to question, doubt is cast not only on his competence to stand trial but also on the very capacity of our legal system to assign blame. The issue becomes whether there is sufficient question to require jury consideration of the defendant's ability to understand the law and conform his conduct to it 72 that is, whether he can be considered an autonomous, choice-making actor deserving blame for alleged wrongdoing. 73 Protection granted a competent individual's choice has no bearing on this issue, which basically challenges the justification for punishment. 29 In this light, because Alford and Faretta protect rights of competent defendants, their holdings have little application to society's obligation, through the insanity defense, to withhold punishment of someone not blameworthy. A plainly nonfrivolous challenge to a defendant's mental responsibility requires inquiry because it suggests that the free will presupposed by our criminal justice system cannot be presumed. Thus, Alford's protection of a defendant's right to plead guilty, even while maintaining his own innocence, cannot similarly reserve the insanity plea decision to the defendant. Moreover, Alford itself is limited to permitting the self-claimed innocent's ability to enter a guilty plea. 74 Certainly, this provides no authority for entrusting the entire decision on the insanity defense to the defendant. 30 Similarly, Faretta's explication of the right to self-representation 75 has no bearing on the insanity issue. No defendant, whether acting pro se or through counsel, can restrain the court from considering whether the insanity defense should be raised. Even the right to self-representation at trial does not grant license to reshape the very foundations of our criminal law. 76