Legal Document

128 S. Ct. 2379 (2008) INDIANA, Petitioner, v. Ahmad EDWARDS. No. 07-208. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 26, 2008. Decided June 19, *2381 Thomas M. Fisher, for Petitioner. Michael R. Dreeben, Washington, D.C., States as amicus curiae, by special leave the Court, supporting Mark T. Stancil, Respondent. Steve Carter, Attorney General, Solicitor Julie A. Brubaker, Justin F. Roebel, Heather L. Hagan, Deputy Attorneys Daniel Ortiz, Michelle D. Morris, Charlottesville, VA, Indianapolis, IN, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, David Goldberg, Donahue New York, NY, Justice BREYER delivered opinion Court. This case focuses upon a criminal defendant whom state court found mentally competent to stand trial if represented counsel but not conduct that himself. We must decide whether in these circumstances Constitution forbids State from insisting proceed with counsel, thereby denying right represent See U.S. Const., Amdt. 6; Faretta California, 422 806, 95 2525, 45 Ed. 2d 562 (1975). conclude does forbid so insist. *2382 I In July 1999 Edwards, respondent, tried steal pair shoes an Indiana department store. After he was discovered, drew gun, fired at store security officer, and wounded bystander. He caught then charged attempted murder, battery deadly weapon, recklessness, theft. His mental condition subsequently became subject three competency proceedings two self-representation requests, mostly before same judge: 1. First Competency Hearing: August 2000. Five months after Edwards' arrest, his court-appointed asked psychiatric evaluation. hearing psychiatrist neuropsychologist witnesses (in February 2000 again 2000), Edwards incompetent trial, App. 365a, committed him Logansport Hospital evaluation treatment, see id., 48a-53a. 2. Second 2002. Seven commitment, doctors had improved point where could trial. Id., 63a-64a. Several later, however, still another 2002, judge held hearing, considered additional evidence, April) while "suffer[ing] illness," "competent assist attorneys defense crimes." 114a. 3. Third April 2003. later sought yet client. And, 2003, hearing. presented further neuropsychological evidence showing suffering serious thinking difficulties delusions. A testifying reported understand charges against him, "unable cooperate attorney because schizophrenic illness"; "[h]is delusions marked make it impossible attorney." 164a. November concluded ordered recommitment hospital. 206a-211a. 4. Self-Representation Request Trial: 2005. About eight hospital become 228a-236a. And almost one year began. Just 509a, 520a. also continuance, which, said, needed order pro se. 519a-520a. The refused continuance. proceeded counsel. jury convicted recklessness theft failed reach verdict on murder battery. 5. December decided retry charges. retrial, permit 279a-282a. Referring lengthy record reports, noted suffered schizophrenia "[w]ith findings, he's *2383 I'm going find defend himself." 527a. denied request. appointed retrial. both remaining counts. appealed Indiana's intermediate appellate court. argued court's refusal himself retrial deprived constitutional self-representation. Faretta, supra. agreed new matter went That "[t]he this presents substantial basis agree court," 866 N.E.2d 252, 260 (2007), nonetheless affirmed belief Court's precedents, namely, 562, Godinez Moran, 509 389, 113 2680, 125 321 (1993), required allow At request, we consider II Our examination precedents convinces us those frame question presented, they do answer it. cases set forth Constitution's "mental competence" standard, Dusky States, 362 402, 80 788, 4 824 (1960) (per curiam), Drope Missouri, 420 162, 896, 43 103 (1975), specify individual who lacks competency." defines standard including (1) "whether" has "a rational well factual understanding him" (2) "has sufficient present ability consult lawyer reasonable degree understanding." U.S., 788 (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). repeats stating long been accepted person whose is such capacity nature object preparing may be subjected trial." 171, 896 added). Neither issue here, relation competence foundational "self-representation" case, Sixth Fourteenth Amendments include "constitutional without when" "voluntarily intelligently elects so." 807, 2525 original). implied from: "nearly universal conviction," made manifest law, "forcing unwilling contrary basic truly wants so," 817-818, 2525; Amendment language granting rights "accused;" (3) structure indicating sets forth, related "fair administration American justice," are "persona[l]" accused, 818-821, (4) absence historical examples forced representation, 821-832, (5) "`respect individual,'" 834, (quoting Illinois Allen, 397 337, 350-351, 90 1057, 25 353 *2384 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring) (a knowing intelligent waiver "must honored out `that respect which lifeblood law'")). did problem (cf. 835, (Faretta "literate, competent, understanding")), itself have clear absolute. Martinez Appeal Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist., 528 152, 163, 120 684, 145 597 (2000) (no direct appeal case); McKaskle Wiggins, 465 168, 178-179, 104 944, 79 122 (1984) (appointment standby over self-represented defendant's objection permissible); n. 46, "to abuse dignity courtroom"); ibid. avoid compliance "relevant rules procedural substantive law"); 46 "engag[e] obstructionist misconduct," referring supra). here concerns mental-illness-related limitation scope right. sole together, Godinez, supra, closer here. focused borderline-competent change pleas guilty guilty. met Dusky's "knowingly intelligently" waived assistance "freely voluntarily" chose plead 393, 2680 (internal consequently granted change-of-plea requests. 392-393, 2680. federal appeals court, vacated ground ask question, waive 393-394, Competence latter decision, satisfy higher than Dusky. more general only determine 394-395, reversing Appeals, "reject[ed] notion or measured (or even different from) standard." 398, decision guilty, "is no complicated sum total decisions [represented] called during course Ibid. Hence "there reason believe requires appreciably level functioning other rights." 399, assuming might pose trial-related difficulties, "the seeking right, *2385 For reason, concluded, `technical legal knowledge' `not relevant' determination." 400, 836, 2525). concede bears certain similarities case. Both involve falls gray area between minimal requirement measures somewhat fitness purpose. now. part Appeals differs critical way measure own enter plea; seeks proceedings. To put specifically, seek proceedings, expressly issue. Thus emphasized "competence right." need "technical knowledge" about how our holding consistent earlier statement Massey Moore, 348 105, 108, 75 145, 99 135 (1954), "[o]ne insane sense being incapable standing lack benefit counsel." 399-400, 10, noting dealt quite presented" Godinez). very matters directly us. thing, involved gray-area Godinez's so. But simply tell deny himselfthe One argue grant (to State) permission implicitly Cf. ("States free adopt standards elaborate formulation"). Yet forcefully defendants disallow (the here). upshot that, view, open one. III now turn presented. assume (i.e., meets standard) insists representing permits limit representation trialon *2386 unless represented. considerations taken together lead yes. First, precedent, answering points slightly direction affirmative answer. just leaves open. competency" "present lawyer," Dusky, omitted); "capacity . counsel," [counsel] defense," Drope, 896. ("It trial" added)). These emphasize importance They thus suggest (though hold) instance would choose forgo circumstances, calls standard. time rested its conclusion pre-existing law all with, least adopt, 813, 9, (citing 16 state-court secondary sources). See, e.g., Cappetta State, 204 So. 913, 917-918 (Fla.App.1967), rev'd grounds, 216 749 (Fla.1968), cited (assuring "mentally competent" defense" provided "no unusual exist" as, derangement" "would depriv[e]" "of fair allowed 2d, 917-918); 918 (noting "whether evident resting sound discretion judge"); Allen Commonwealth, 324 Mass. 558, 562-563, 87 192, 195 (1949) assignment counsel" "necessary" there some "special circumstance" when defective"). Second, cautions use single deciding can goes permitted Mental illness unitary concept. It varies degree. vary time. interferes individual's times ways. history (set Part I, supra) illustrates complexity problem. instances able will work unable carry tasks help N. Poythress, Bonnie, J. Monahan, Otto, Hoge, Adjudicative Competence: MacArthur Studies (2002) ("Within each domain adjudicative (competence counsel; decisional competence) data indicate understanding, reasoning, appreciation [of defendant] separable independent aspects functional *2387 ability"). McKaskle, 174, 944 (describing organization defense, making motions, arguing participating voir dire, questioning witnesses, addressing jury). Psychiatric Association (APA) tells (without dispute) brief filed support neither party "[d]isorganized thinking, deficits sustaining attention concentration, impaired expressive abilities, anxiety, common symptoms severe illnesses impair play significantly expanded role lesser defendant." Brief APA et al. Amici Curiae 26. Motions documents prepared (one Appendix, infra) layperson conclusion. Third, "affirm dignity" 176-177, ("Dignity" "autonomy" underlie right). contrary, given uncertain state, spectacle result likely prove humiliating ennobling. Moreover, insofar threatens improper conviction sentence, exceptional context undercuts most objectives, providing As Brennan it, protect none prevented courts acting preserve processes prescribes." 350, 1057 (concurring opinion). Martinez, 684 ("Even government's interest ensuring integrity efficiency outweighs lawyer"). Sell 539 166, 180, 123 2174, 156 197 (2003) ("[T]he Government concomitant, constitutionally essential assuring one"). Further, fair, "appear observe them." Wheat 486 153, 160, 108 1692, 100 140 (1988). An reports psychiatrist's reaction having observed patient satisfied Dusky) try defense: "[H]ow world system man himself?" Ohio 24 Massey, ("No insane, unaided stands helpless alone court"). application result. capacities little sufficient. time, judge, particularly presided hearings trials, often best fine-tuned decisions, tailored individualized particular defendant. judges take realistic account *2388 asking say, insist enough under suffer themselves. IV specific "deny cannot communicate coherently jury." Petitioner 20 deleted). sufficiently uncertain, practice refrain endorsing now, not, overrule Faretta. decline recognize sometimes expressed concern intent, led trials unfair. 164, (BREYER, practical judges). recent empirical research suggests common. Hashimoto, Defending Right Self-Representation: Empirical Look Pro Se Felony Defendant, 85 N.C.L.Rev. 423, 427, 447, 428 (2007) small number se"roughly 0.3% 0.5%" total, felony achieved acquittal rates their counterparts were less felonies"). trial's fairness doubt concentrated percent (about se undergo evaluations). If so, today's opinion, authority deal appropriately category, alleviate concerns. reasons, judgment vacated, remanded inconsistent opinion. So ordered. APPENDIX Excerpt respondent's filing entitled "`Defendant's Version Instant Offense,'" attached presentence investigation report: "`The motion permissive intervention therein superior on, 6-26-01 caused stay action apon it's expiration thereafter years plan establish youth program coordination enforcement prevent reduce crime amoung young people diplomatic act Safe Streets Act 1967, "A omnibuc considerate agent: membered clients within public others at/production actions showcased causes. costs (Trial Rule 60) derivative property is: my knowledged events unexpended contract commission finding facilitie project administrative recommendations conditioned governors.'" *2389 N.E.2d, 258, (alterations SCALIA, THOMAS joins, dissenting. guarantees knowingly voluntarily waives ill instead through receives comports Amendment. (1993). today concludes strip fairer. view substitute perception jurya understood suffers schizophrenia, manifested ways depending treated factors appear harder identify. 2003years apparently antipsychotic medications drugs commonly prescribed illness repeatedly declared Even period, seems fluctuated. instance, 2001 described report "free psychosis, depression, mania, confusion," "alert, oriented, [and] appropriate," "able think clearly" "psychiatrically normal." 61a. medication first 2004. year. recommendation thought "coherent" wrote "communicate[d] well," speech "easy understand," displayed "good communications skills, cooperative attitude, average intelligence, good cognitive functioning," "appraise roles participants courtroom proceedings," challenge prosecution realistically testify relevantly. 232a-235a (report Dr. Robert Sena). Over what separate lawyer. incoherent written pleadings places emphasis, several intelligible pleadings, dismiss speedy provision, transcript. arguments coherent pleadings. complained detail spent adequate sharing materials defense. quiz law. correctly answered questions meaning dire operated, framework admitting videotape though *2390 questions, topics covered evidentiary identified number. persisted request himself, acknowledged Represented theft, deadlocked second explained disagreed charge. favored intent kill; self-defense. it: "My me actually discussed mentioned disagreement like Judge." 523a. rejected se, justification dispute stated "going carve third exception" self-representation, andwithout explaining precisely abilities lackedstated soughtby raising courtto address matter, refused, already decided. pursued judged bestlack self-defenseand certiorari, granted. 552 ___, 741, 169 579 (2007). every "right 2525. reflects nearly conviction, courts, forcing 817, Faretta's discussion 821-833, includes observation "[i]n British jurisprudence, tribunal ever adopted proceeding. Star Chamber," 821, premise Amendment, confers tools "accused," describes "assistance." seen traditional Due Process Clause. 165, (SCALIA, concurring judgment). Whichever provision provides source, means force wishes *2391 Exercising waiving "`knowingly intelligently'" lawyer's guaranteed "be aware dangers disadvantages self-representation," "establish `he knows doing choice eyes open.'" Adams ex rel. McCann, 317 269, 279, 63 236, 268 (1942)). relevant many defendants, them. warned extensively risks proceeding 512a, "carv[ing] out" "exception" beyond voluntary waiver, When appreciates forgoing chooses voluntarily, protects harms fact "usually" 177, 8, (1984); said "choice law.'" What State's rigorous adversarial testing possibleafter all, eliminate pleading using sees fit. 321, Clause posed barrier permitting 391, "never rule law" either exercise give up 404, (KENNEDY, invitation craft proposal, built "flawed premise" himself" measure: "[T]he grounded candid acknowledgment protected disadvantage. B correct variation Godinez: proposed waiver) limits elect *2392 values) makes easier While yield conflict, nothing protection. Although purpose [the Sixth] ensure trial," "does follow disregarded is, whole, fair." Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 140, 126 2557, 165 409 (2006). Thus, although Confrontation aims produce reliability testimony, provide unconfronted testimony used reliable. Crawford 541 36, 61, 124 1354, 158 177 (2004). approach liberties "`abstracts purposes, eliminates right.'" 2557 Maryland Craig, 497 862, 110 3157, 111 666 (1990) dissenting)). Until today, accorded guarantees. circumstance deprive rights: necessary enable orderly fashion. overriding necessity, justifies forfeiture trial if, threatened removal, "insists conducting manner disorderly, disruptive, disrespectful carried courtroom." 343, (1970). "abuse courtroom," nor fail "comply law," "terminate" "deliberately engages misconduct." 834-835, terminating unavailable begin respectful compliant gone forward press claims. Beyond circumstance, never constrained retain "actual control jury"what termed core 178, 944. recognized bar appointing Wiggins content participate appropriate Furthermore, "multiple voices `for defense'" "confuse message convey," attorney's participation barred "destroy jury's himself," explained, squarely rightsallowing disregard *2393 serves purposes intended. approach, remain dissent, assessment inaccurate boot. preserving "`dignity'" refers), ante, 2387, paramount among equally loss "dignity" designed fool presenting amateurish Rather, supreme human master one's fate rather ward Statethe choice. Amendment's clause should invoked "`the defendant's] choice'" dispense 815, Adams, 280, 236); "whatever else Bill Rights, surely inestimable worth choice," 833-834, Nine served "dignity autonomy accused," terms meant according say particular, actual sum, honor conception underlies honoring choices made. finds advanced denial Ante, 2387. knowledge "fair" outside observers, inaugurate principle apply stood "I Judge," 523a, epitome apparent unfairness heard "your desire yourself I've your speak you on," 530a. historic component suspicious footing itself. explicitly text Members skepticism holding. 156-158, (questioning relevance underlying holding); "judges firing line dismay consequences" self-representation). mention *2394 defendant, lawyer, call confront "his defence" system, allows "full manage trial"an adversary process function effectively." Taylor Illinois, 484 418, 646, 98 798 (1988); Florida Nixon, 543 175, 187, 551, 160 565 client accept consequences cross-examination, stand, disclose identity advance Taylor, 646. cross-examine anything tenuous unacceptable fiction," consented Otherwise, Constitution, real sense, defense." facts illustrate utmost clarity. wished self-defense jury. preferred intent. Having opportunity grounds believed supported innocence. anyway. hold state-selected agent behalf Frankfurter "imprison privileges Constitution." singling questionable virtue politically correct. society trying mainstream impaired, them rightfor good. Today's extraordinarily vague. position "`where jury,'" 2388. properly holds form 2381-2382. presumably future, indeterminacy bad worse. Once sometime incentive lives easierto painful necessity deciphering occasional sort contained Appendix opinionby knowledgeable literate Because capable respectfully dissent.

Classification Label: 0