Juvenile Defendants & Right to Defend Themselves This resear

 
 
 
 
JUVENILES AS PRO PERS IN CALIFORNIA

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 Co


     
 
 
 
    

 

Related Essays

JUVENILES AS PRO PERS IN CALIFORNIA This resear .... This research paper discusses whether juvenile defendants in criminal or civil proceedings in California have the right to defend themselves (in propria .... (5820 23 )

JUVENILES AS PRO PERS IN CALIFORNIA This resear This research paper discusses whether juvenile defendants in criminal or civil proceedings in California have the right to defend themselves (in propria .... (6863 27 )



at a criminal defendant had no constitutional right to defend himself at his trial has been reversed. See among many other cases People v. Ortiz, 51 Cal.3d 975, 275 Cal.Rptr. 191, 800 P.2d 547 (1990). In United States v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1989), the Court, citing Justice Stewart's statement in Faretta that that right did not include a license to disrupt normal courtroom procedures, affirmed the denial of pro per status to an adult criminal defendant. In People v. Poplawski, 25 Cal.App.4th, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 760 (1994), an Appellate Court said that only the defendant's in-court trial conduct could be used to deny him pro per status. Justice Stewart said at 835 that "the trial court [must] admonish the defendant as to the 'dangers and disadvantages' of self-representation." It has, however, been held that the Court need not advise the defendant of his right of self-representation unless the defendant first asserts that right. See United States v. Martinez, 883 F.2d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 1989), vacated, 928 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1991). Other limitations set by the federal courts are that: (1) the trial court may appoint 'stand by' counsel for the defendant, but must monitor the activities of such counsel to ensure that

Category: Government - J
 
 
 
Common Topics
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Click Here to Get Instant Access to over 32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
 
 
 
Join Now  
 
 
 
 
 
Saved Papers  
 
 
Save your essays here so you can locate them quickly!
 
 
 
Testimonials  
 
"Thank you for making such a high quality site! Your papers are the best I have seen around"
Debbie B.
 
"Your site was very helpful and gave me the details I needed in order to complete my essay!!!"
Mike F.
 
"This site is an excellent vehicle for quick referrences. Thanks a bunch!"
Carla T.
 
"Great site, I got a lot of new ideas I would have never thought of before."
Nate A.
 
"I love this site!!!"
Marie H.
 
 
 
 
Copyright © 2007 - 2012 Lots of Essays. All Rights Reserved. DMCA