Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Communication And Competence For Self-Representation, E. Lea Johnston
Communication And Competence For Self-Representation, E. Lea Johnston
UF Law Faculty Publications
In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states may impose a higher competency standard for self-representation than to stand trial in criminal cases. While the Court articulated a number of interests relevant to representational competence, it left to states the difficult task of formulating an actual competence standard. This Article offers the first examination and assessment of the constitutionality of state standards post-Edwards. It reveals that seven states have endorsed a representational competence standard with a communication component. Additionally, twenty states have embraced vague, capacious standards that could consider communication skills. States have applied these standards to …
Setting The Standard: A Critique Of Bonnie's Competency Standard And The Potential Of Problem-Solving Theory For Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston
Setting The Standard: A Critique Of Bonnie's Competency Standard And The Potential Of Problem-Solving Theory For Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston
UF Law Faculty Publications
In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment permits a trial court to impose a higher competency standard for self-representation than to stand trial. The Court declined to specify the contents of a permissible representational competence standard, but cited with support the construct of adjudicative competence developed by Professor Richard Bonnie. While Bonnie's proposal may provide an appropriate framework for evaluating the competence of represented defendants' decisions, it is at most a starting point for defining the capacities needed for self-representation at trial. This Article begins by exposing three reasons why Bonnie's approach is …