The Defendants Rights to Defend Themselves

A similar training appears in Article I, sec. 15 of the California Constitution:

"The suspect in a lamentable case has the right . . . to induce the assistance of give noticelor for the defendant's defense, to be person exclusivelyy present with counsel." feel also Article I, sec. 14 which extends the right to counsel to arraignments.

no(prenominal) of these professional personvisions say anything whatsoever about the rights of adults or juveniles to cook up themselves and the constitutional right to counsel is expressly limited to criminal proceedings.

Until 1963 the right of criminal defendants to counsel in claim move proceedings was limited to cases involving capital crimes under the ruling of the U.S. domineering Court in Powell v. Alabama (1932) 287 U.S. 45. The unequivocal Court held in Betts v. Brady (1942) 304 U.S. 458 that the provisions of the Sixth Amendment were not otherwise applicable to state court proceedings. The Warren Court held in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 355 that free defendants charged with felonies in state criminal endeavors were entitled to be represented by counsel, a right which the Court verbalise was one of the fundamental rights which were essential to a fair trial, which was guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment and which was applicable to the states by dint of the Due Process article of the 14th Amendment.

The ruling in Gideon did not satisfy all the needs of criminal defendants for access to counsel because many convictions were obtained through pre-

In re Shawnn F., 34 Cal.App.4th 184, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 263 (1995).

Williams v. Huff, 142 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1944).

In unite States v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1989), the Court, citing Justice Stewart's debate in Faretta that that right did not include a freedom to disrupt normal courtroom procedures, affirmed the abnegation 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.

United States v. Price, 474 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1973), rehearing

In Dana J. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.3d 595, 94 Cal.Rptr. 619, 494 P.2d 595 (1971), the California Supreme Court held on appeal of the denial of a writ of habeas corpus that a waiver was shut-in because there was evidence that the minor was pressured by his parents to waive counsel so that they would not have to reimburse the county. In accord, In re Ricky H., 2. Cal.3d 513, 86 Cal.Rptr. 76, 468 P.2d 204 (1970). In In re Dana J., supra the California Supreme Court went beyond the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court and issued a writ of mandate requiring that on appeal, counsel must submit to a pro per minor lack to appeal his conviction the transcript of the trial and a sum-up of the arguments counsel advanced on behalf of the juvenile to the trial judge.

In re Christian H., 182 Cal.App.3d 47, 227 Cal.Rptr. 41 (1986)

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.