OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

[Hyrion]

[snip] Indiana v. Edwards, the 2008 case [snip]

If I understand the Supreme Courts decision correctly - I agree with them.

[T]he 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.

Combined with (the sentence just before):

We rejected the invitation to craft a higher competency standard for waiving counsel than for standing trial. That proposal, we said, was built on the “flawed premise” that a defendant’s “competence to represent himself” was the relevant measure

To put in my own words:

• The right to choose to be self-represented - to do your own work

outweighs

• You do not have a right to be competent when you choose to perform that work and have not chosen to become proficient with the field of expertise involved first

Doesn't really matter if that choice is to represent yourself in Court or to fix your leaking main water pipe. Everyone has the right to pay for their own mistakes and the right to choose to make those mistakes if they want..... assuming - of course - those mistakes directly impact themselves and no others.

[KickahaOta]

If I understand the Supreme Courts decision correctly - I agree with them.

[T]he 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.

Combined with (the sentence just before):

We rejected the invitation to craft a higher competency standard for waiving counsel than for standing trial. That proposal, we said, was built on the “flawed premise” that a defendant’s “competence to represent himself” was the relevant measure

Unfortunately, you have committed a cardinal error of understanding appellate and Supreme Court decisions: you've quoted from the dissent.

The late Justice Scalia wrote these things in his opinion. However, his view did not carry the day. (In fact, his view lost 7-2; the only other justice who agreed with him was Justice Thomas, always a dubious result.)

It is very, very dangerous to use a dissent as evidence of anything. In the case of the text you quoted, Justica Scalia is giving his interpretation of the meaning of Godinaz v. Moran, a previous case involving self-representation. Just like his vote on Indiana v. Edwards did not carry the day, his impression of the meaning of prior cases may not reflect the other judges' understanding either. But even if Justice Scalia was right about the meaning of Godinaz, it's beside the point, because the seven-vote majority in Indiana determined that Godinaz hadn't raised the same question.

We concede that Godinez bears certain similarities with the present case. Both involve mental competence and self-representation. Both involve a defendant who wants to represent himself. Both involve a mental condition that
falls in a gray area between Dusky’s minimal constitutional requirement that measures a defendant’s ability tostand trial and a somewhat higher standard that measures mental fitness for another legal purpose.
We nonetheless conclude that Godinez does not answer the question before us now[...]

And the opinion goes on to explain the differences between the cases, a discussion that's too long to quote here.

[Hyrion]

Unfortunately, you have committed a cardinal error of understanding appellate and Supreme Court decisions: you've quoted from the dissent.

My cardinal error actually occurred prior to that: I didn't read the whole thing. Just did a quick search and didn't cover the surrounding readings. So... since the Court holds - as per my very quick and brief reading of your post which could also easily result in misunderstanding on my part - that a person (my words) "should not be held to account for their folly" - I'll disagree with them

I'll have to read through the full ruling (and your post) when I get time.

[Gregg]

Think I figured out what the China talk is about. A twitter account possibly belonging to the court appointed attorney has a lot of links to news articles about China. They’ve spun this as him being a Chinese agent that goes to seminars in China.

So far have only found him going to seminars in his own state. Unless there’s legal seminars given in China in English for public defenders that I’m not aware of.

Oh, I remember that! The China connection is he went back to school for an MBA a few years ago, and as part of his Executive MBA program he took a class that involved a 2 week field trip to China. In "Executive MBA'' programs at a lot of schools this is standard, the whole class goes overseas for a few weeks as part of an ''International Business'' class. I have noticed that Xavier does it (choice between Asia, Europe or South America). This is how Notre Dame (where I think he went) describes it...

Immerse Yourself In International Business
Participate in the weeklong, project-based international immersion experience, where you’ll be connected with an international company or organization to help solve a specific business challenge. Past students have traveled to Brussels, China and Turkey to apply their first-year coursework in an international setting.

[wserra]

Aha! He obviously returned as the Manchurian Candidate, cleverly disguised as a public defender in Beechwood, Ohio.

Diabolical!

[alexhammer]

And the opinion goes on to explain the differences between the cases, a discussion that's too long to quote here.

Thank you for the citations KickahaOta. I've read through them, twice now. Faretta seems to be the most specific, but all of them give some amount of latitude to the trial judge. However, it seems like the fundamental, most important thing a judge can do is to provide a fair trial. All of these opinions reinforce that. And to do that, I think these rulings essentially provide guidance or specific out-of-bounds rulings, but leave the specifics of how to best deliver a fair trial up to the individual trial judges and to state law.

[Jeffrey]

Had a little bit of a relapse last night and had to indulge my monomania last night. HATJ's latest filing had a bit that stood out to me, the whole 70 page filing only contains two references to actual laws:



Did more digging and turns out there was a reason why that was ringing bells. It's the same two laws Charles Miller cites in his UCC filings back when he was trying to get himself out of jail:

[KickahaOta]

For those who are interested in the unfortunate clashes between insanity/delusion and self-representation, there's another very illuminating case that just came out of the Ninth Circuit: US v. Jonathan Lee Read.

A summary:

• Mr. Reed stabbed his cellmate repeatedly, then claimed to have no memory of the attack.
• He was first judged incompetent to stand trial and hospitalized, but then four months later judged competent by the supervising psychologist, despite still having delusional/schizophrenic beliefs (such as that someone was using a voodoo doll to cause him pain).
• He was then evaluated for a different purpose: to see if he was competent at the time of the attack. During this evaluation, Reed claimed that he was not mentally ill, but instead suffered from "demonization". He was judged competent (able to appreciate the wrongness and nature of his acts).
• Reed was assigned a public defender, who prepared an insanity defense. Reed categorically rejected that defense, and instead insisted on presenting a defense based on demonic possession. Since the attorney wouldn't go along with that, Reed demanded to proceed pro se so that he could present his demonic-possession defense. The public defender pointed out that, legally, the two defenses were the same thing. Reed wouldn't have it. All of his proposed witnesses and discovery related to demonic possession, not to a conventional defense (either insanity or actual innocence).
• Ultimately, the trial judge made the Indiana v. Edwards call, and found that Reed was incompetent to represent himself.
• At trial, the public defender presented the insanity defense, but Read was convicted.
• On appeal, the Ninth Circuit panel found that the Indiana v. Edwards appointment of counsel was within the trial judge's discretion, but that the trial was fatally flawed in another way: the appointed counsel should not have been allowed to present an insanity defense. Here the appellate panel relied on McCoy v. Louisiana, a recent Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, although a defendant's counsel has the right to control the particulars of the defense, the defendant (if he's competent to stand trial at all) has the right to control the "objectives" of the defense -- what the defense fundamentally is. In the case of McCoy itself, defense counsel in a death penalty case conceded McCoy's guilt (over McCoy's vehement objections), because counsel thought that it was the only hope of avoiding the death penalty itself. The Court decided that, even though the concession may well have been the best defense:

the client may not share that objective. He may wish to avoid, above all else, the opprobrium that comes with admitting he killed family members. Or he may hold life in prison not worth living and prefer to risk death for any hope, however small, of exoneration. When a client expressly asserts that the objective of “his defence” is to maintain innocence of the charged criminal acts, his lawyer must abide by that objective and may not override it by conceding guilt.

• The Ninth Circuit found that, like McCoy, Read still had the right to reject an insanity defense, even though it clearly seemed the best option:

[...]pleading insanity has grave, personal implications that are separate from its functional equivalence to a guilty plea. True, one reason that an insanity defense should not be imposed on a defendant is that it can sometimes directly violate the McCoy right to maintain innocence. However, even where this concern is absent, the defendant’s choice to avoid contradicting his own deeply personal belief that he is sane, as well as to avoid the risk of confinement in a mental institution and the social stigma associated with an assertion or adjudication of insanity, are still present. These considerations go beyond mere trial tactics and so must be left with the defendant.

So the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, which makes sense under the legal principles discussed but is still very sad, since the second trial is almost guaranteed to be a sad spectacle -- Read is still probably incompetent to represent itself, and so another public defender will presumably have to present a doomed factual-innocence defense (or stand aside and let Read try to present a legally-hopeless defense of his own), resulting in another conviction.

[notorial dissent]

I'm amazed that HAT actually could come up with two actual bits of law, but blind squirrel and all that. Although what DC's UCC code and membership in the Hague have to do with anything I'm lost.

[KickahaOta]

Had a little bit of a relapse last night and had to indulge my monomania last night. HATJ's latest filing had a bit that stood out to me, the whole 70 page filing only contains two references to actual laws:



Did more digging and turns out there was a reason why that was ringing bells. It's the same two laws Charles Miller cites in his UCC filings back when he was trying to get himself out of jail:

Except that it looks like she flubbed it (or someone else flubbed it along the chain of sovcit copy-and-paste that led to HATJ's filing), and she listed the same law twice.

[Chaos]

I notice she's not helping the bean at all. just a distant memory.

[notorial dissent]

Had a little bit of a relapse last night and had to indulge my monomania last night. HATJ's latest filing had a bit that stood out to me, the whole 70 page filing only contains two references to actual laws:



Did more digging and turns out there was a reason why that was ringing bells. It's the same two laws Charles Miller cites in his UCC filings back when he was trying to get himself out of jail:

Except that it looks like she flubbed it (or someone else flubbed it along the chain of sovcit copy-and-paste that led to HATJ's filing), and she listed the same law twice.

That's what happens when you crib from someone else's work. Originality isn't HAT's long suite so no real surprise.

Since Randy's got a fer shure real lawyer, for the moment, HAT can't help him. We'll see how long this lasts, although I think the appeals have already been filed so it should be too late for either of them to really to go full on sovcit.

[wserra]

I notice she's not helping the bean at all.

Except that it's probably too late, he'd be far better off for the absence of her help.

[Chaos]

I notice she's not helping the bean at all.

Except that it's probably too late, he'd be far better off for the absence of her help.

totally agree. it's just that their followers haven't seemed to notice he's been kicked to the metaphorical curb.

[notorial dissent]

I notice she's not helping the bean at all. just a distant memory.

I think she has "helped" Randy more than enough for one life time. As to the HAT groupies, he is pretty much Randy who at this point.

[Resume]

NUTJ claims her attorney does not speak/act for her:
https://i-uv.com/universalcleanup-its-a ... authority/

Dennis has no, and has never had, lawful and legal authority to speak or act for me, or on my behalf. It’s a matter of universal record (including, and not limited to, the so-called record maintained by the so-called Clerk.)

More larping for her credules, I guess.

[wserra]

Dennis has no, and has never had, lawful and legal authority to speak or act for me, or on my behalf. It’s a matter of universal record (including, and not limited to, the so-called record maintained by the so-called Clerk.)

The so-called Clerk seems not to agree.

[Jeffrey]

This is unconfirmed but Randall is apparently claiming the same thing. That the appeal was filed without his consent.

[Gregg]

comments...

Ok, so they should tell us how this all works…while they fiddle/diddle with extensions, HATJ is cooling her heals in a very small space in Cali.

Is there a limit to how many extensions that the UNTIED STATES© can file? What would stop still yet another extension after the 2nd one??

Pres. Trump, are you following this case? You have been petitioned for a Presidential Pardon.

[notorial dissent]

I was under the impression, and I may be very wrong here, that the court appointed a PD to do the appeals for both HAT and the Beane, since they did such a bang up job representing themselves at trial. I wonder if she just now got around to actually reading what he filed? I wonder if she thought he would file whatever cray cray stuff she had given him, or just wasn't paying attention.