{"id":1773,"date":"2017-02-22T01:51:58","date_gmt":"2017-02-22T01:51:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?p=1773"},"modified":"2019-11-11T16:22:24","modified_gmt":"2019-11-11T21:22:24","slug":"self-representation-erroneously-denied","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/self-representation-erroneously-denied","title":{"rendered":"Self Representation Erroneously Denied By State Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n
Brian Foster unequivocally asked to represent himself at his state trial. The state trial court conducted a Faretta hearing to decide if it would allow Foster to represent himself. In Faretta v. California<\/em>, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the Supreme Court recognized the right of self-representation.<\/p>\r\n The state district judge refused Foster\u2019s request to represent himself, finding that he had what was in effect, \u201climited education.\u201d The state court also put the burden on Foster to show that \u201che understood, and accepted, the challenges of self-representation.\u201d The Seventh Circuit held this was error.<\/p>\r\n \u201cNothing \u2026 suggests that Tatum suffered from deficient mental functioning, as opposed to a limited education. In fact, he displayed relatively good knowledge of the criminal process: he gave a reasonable description of voir dire (which he correctly called by name), strikes for cause and peremptory strikes, opening statements, the nature of the charges against him, and the general range of penalties he faced.\u00a0Faretta<\/em>\u00a0requires no more. The court’s failure to recognize this was compounded when it inappropriately placed the burden on Tatum to convince it that he understood, and accepted, the challenges of self-representation. This, too, was inconsistent with\u00a0Faretta<\/em>, which places the duty on the trial court to warn the defendant about what he is getting into, and then leave the defendant free to decide how he wants to proceed.\u201d<\/p>\r\n Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court and remanded with instructions to grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus unless the state affords Foster a new trial within 90 days. See: Tatum v. Foster<\/a>, No. 14-3343\u00a0(7th Cir. 2017).<\/p>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Brian Foster unequivocally asked to represent himself at his state trial. The state trial court conducted a Faretta hearing to decide if it would allow Foster to represent himself. In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the Supreme Court recognized the right of self-representation. The state district judge refused Foster\u2019s request to represent himself,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1775,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[328],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n