When discussing questions of right, the issues of waiver and forfeiture often come up.
A defendant facing jail time has a constitutional right to counsel, but, if he is mentally competent to do so, he also has right to waive that right and represent himself. Justice Blackmun, in dissent, called that a constitutional right to make of fool of himself, but that's the law. A defendant also has a right not to testify at his own trial, but he can waive that right and take the stand if he chooses.
A waiver is voluntary relinquishment of a known right. A forfeiture is the loss of a right by failure to assert it or by wrongdoing of some sort. A defendant has a right to confront witnesses and to exclude out-of-court testimonial statements, but he can forfeit the right by murdering the witness for the purpose of keeping his testimony out.
The right to counsel can be waived, we know, but can it be forfeited? The Utah Supreme Court says it can:
Note that this is on appeal, not trial. The constitutional footing of the right to counsel on appeal has always been shakier than the trial right.
Jack Healy has this story in the NYT.
A defendant facing jail time has a constitutional right to counsel, but, if he is mentally competent to do so, he also has right to waive that right and represent himself. Justice Blackmun, in dissent, called that a constitutional right to make of fool of himself, but that's the law. A defendant also has a right not to testify at his own trial, but he can waive that right and take the stand if he chooses.
A waiver is voluntary relinquishment of a known right. A forfeiture is the loss of a right by failure to assert it or by wrongdoing of some sort. A defendant has a right to confront witnesses and to exclude out-of-court testimonial statements, but he can forfeit the right by murdering the witness for the purpose of keeping his testimony out.
The right to counsel can be waived, we know, but can it be forfeited? The Utah Supreme Court says it can:
This matter is before the court on a motion to withdraw filed by the appellant's appellate counsel. We grant the motion and conclude that the appellant has repeatedly engaged in extreme dilatory, disruptive, and threatening conduct that constitutes a forfeiture of his right to counsel for the limited remainder of the proceedings on appeal.The case is State v. Allgier, No. 071904711, Jan. 23, 2015.
Note that this is on appeal, not trial. The constitutional footing of the right to counsel on appeal has always been shakier than the trial right.
Jack Healy has this story in the NYT.
People v. Espinoza out of the 6th Appellate District (California), published today:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H039219.PDF
You abuse it, you lose it. One of the very oldest principles in law.
This guy has made it crystal clear he doesn't want a lawyer. He wants someone with a law degree to spit at.
Game's up.