Opinion ID: 475859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Understanding the Dangers and Disadvantages of Self-Representation

Text: 139 The majority states that a waiver hearing regarding the disadvantages of a pro se defense is recommended but not absolutely essential, provided that the defendant actually understood those dangers and disadvantages. 9 Yet, the Eleventh Circuit has consistently indicated that this hearing is mandatory. Raulerson, 732 F.2d at 808; United States v. Edwards, 716 F.2d 822, 824 (11th Cir.1983); Hance, 696 F.2d at 949; United States v. Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148, 1152 (5th Cir.1981) (Unit B). I see no reason to abandon our well established procedure. 10 140 The mandatory nature of the Faretta inquiry is justified because the Court has recognized that a defendant's decision to go pro se is tantamount to pleading guilty--the process is just a little slower and perhaps move painful. 11 For example, Justice Sutherland once wrote: 141 Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. 142 Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69, 53 S.Ct. 55, 64, 77 L.Ed.2d 158 (1932). Similarly, the majority in Faretta recognized that a pro se defendant relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. at 2541. Furthermore, the dissenting justices emphasized this point. Chief Justice Burger asked, The fact of the matter is that in all but an extraordinarily small number of cases an accused will lose whatever defense he may have if he undertakes to conduct the trial himself. Id. at 838, 95 S.Ct. at 2543. Justice Blackmun said, The court concludes that self-representation must be allowed despite the obvious dangers of unjust convictions in order to protect the individual's right of free choice. As I have already indicated, I cannot agree to such a drastic curtailment of the interest of the State in seeing that justice is done in a real objective sense. Id. at 851, 95 S.Ct. at 2549. In short, the Faretta inquiry functions much like the guilty plea procedure--both protect a defendant by educating him and ensuring that his decision is voluntary and intelligent.