Opinion ID: 475859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Importance of the Indigency Determination

Text: 124 In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), the Court held that a criminal defendant had a right to self-representation; however, the Court discussed special measures which would protect an accused. For example, the Court hinted that a trial judge could prevent many problems by appointing a qualified lawyer to act as a standby counsel. Id. at 834-35 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. at 2541 n. 46 (Of course, a State may--even over objection by the accused--appoint a 'standby counsel' to aid the accused if and when the accused requests help.). Justice Burger further emphasized this protective measure in his dissent. Id. at 846 n. 7, 95 S.Ct. at 2529 n. 7. 4 The importance of the standby counsel is further enhanced when one recognizes that a defendant may waive his right to self-representation if he later decides to act as co-counsel, Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F.2d 803, 809 (11th Cir.1984), or if he abandons his initial request, Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607, 611 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc ). 125 Because the court failed to determine that defendant was indigent, no standby counsel was appointed. Thus, defendant had no opportunity to request the assistance of counsel during the trial. In effect, the trial court prevented any subsequent waiver of defendant's right to self-representation. 126 In this case, the absence of a standby counsel was significant. On the second day of trial, as the complexity of the case became apparent, defendant said, I have to get a lawyer. Later, defendant requested additional time to prepare his closing argument. He said, I found out it's very complex. Under these circumstances, it is apparent that defendant wanted the assistance of counsel once the trial began. 127