JUVENILES AS PRO PERS IN CALIFORNIA
This resear
This is an excerpt from the paper...
This research paper discusses whether juvenile defendants in criminal or civil proceedings in California have the right to defend themselves (in propria persona or pro per, sometimes referred to as pro se) and, if so, on what conditions. Since the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 866 (1975), defendants in state criminal actions have been held under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to have a right to defend themselves without the benefit of counsel, provided that the court involved has satisfied itself after inquiry that the defendant has made an intelligent and knowing waiver of his or her right to be represented by counsel. This right of self-representation has been acknowledged by California statutes and the case law to apply to criminal proceedings involving juveniles, however, that right is hedged about by restrictions on the freedom of action of the juvenile which may under certain circumstances render it nugatory. More limited statutory rights for juveniles to represent themselves apply as well in some types of civil proceedings, especially where their interests and those of their parents or legal guardians conflict. Pre-1967 Rights to Counsel of Juveniles Constitutional Right to Counsel. The Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides, inter alia, that: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
. . .
f the cases, federal and state, have focused on what constitutes an effective waiver of the right to counsel or the right of self-representation.
The basic rule in the federal courts was laid down in Williams v. Huff, 142 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1944), which held that where a waiver of the right to counsel is involved, the trial court "must determine whether, in the light of his age, education, and information, and all other pertinent facts, he [the defendant] has sustained the burden of proving that his waiver was not competent and intelligent." California courts follow the federal standard with respect to such waivers, see Lara supra, People v. Poplawski, supra, and People v. Bolden, 44 Cal.App.4th 707, review denied, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 (1990).
In Godinez v. Moran (1993) 509 U.S. 389, the Court once again re-affirmed the holding in Faretta and added at 332: "the competence that is required of a defendant seeking to waive his right to counsel is the competence to waive the right, not the competence to represent himself."
Applicability of Faretta to Juvenile Court Cases.
Despite the willingness of the California Supreme Court to sustain a waiver by a juvenile defendant of his right to counsel in serious criminal cases in Lara
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, District Attorney, Godinez Moran, Faretta Harris, Juvenile Courts, Juvenile Court, Inst Code, Appellate Court, Instit Code, Abbott Palmer, juvenile court, supreme court, juvenile courts, waiver counsel, code sec, waive counsel, represent themselves, 9th cir, trial court, civil proceedings, juvenile court judges, california supreme court, welf instit code, waiver counsel demand, 9th cir 1989,
Approximate Word count = 6863
Approximate Pages = 27 (250 words per page)
More Essays on JUVENILES AS PRO PERS IN CALIFORNIA
This resear
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
