Juvenile Defendants & Right to Defend Themselves This resear

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

. . .
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
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Godinez Moran, Faretta Harris, Juvenile Court, Juvenile Courts, Appellate Court, Abbott Palmer, Instit Code, Inst Code, According Wizer, juvenile court, supreme court, juvenile courts, code sec, 9th cir, california supreme court, california supreme, represent themselves, court judges, waiver counsel, juvenile court judges, due process, 9th cir 1989, united supreme court, juvenile court practice,
Approximate Word count = 5820
Approximate Pages = 23 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Juvenile Defendants & Right to Defend Themselves This resear