Court Opinion

ID: 9699202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:13:23.413095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:47.447081
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Justice
(concurring specially).
I write specifically to state that I feel we owe it to the trial bench of this state to set forth specific guidelines, with prospective application, to guide them when confronted with such problems in the future.
I would require the trial courts to advise potential pro se defendants of the pitfalls of self-representation, on the record, by specifically advising them, at a minimum:
1. That criminal trials are governed by technical rules which apply whether an attorney participates or not.
2. That attorneys are trained and experienced in trial procedure; that the prosecution will be represented by an experienced attorney.
3. That he will be given no special consideration from the court because he is representing himself and is not a lawyer.
4. That persons unfamiliar with legal procedures may allow prosecutors an advantage by failing to make objections to inadmissible evidence, not making effective use of their rights, and may make tactical decisions that produce unintended consequences.
5. That a pro se defendant will not be allowed to complain on appeal about the competency of his representation.
6. That the effectiveness of defense may well be diminished by the dual role.
If a defendant persists in representing himself, the trial court must be assured through an on-the-record interchange with the defendant that the defendant understands and appreciates the disadvantages and consequences of self-representation.
The trial court should enter a specific finding on the record, either in writing or orally, that the defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowingly and intelligently made.