 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. State3/20/2001
, and if the defendant cannot afford anattorney, the state will appoint one free of charge to the defendant to defend or assistthe defendant in his/her defense.
2. The defendant has the right to conduct the defense and that the defendant may electto conduct the defense and allow whatever role (s)he desires to his/her attorney.
3. The court will not relax or disregard the rules of evidence, procedure or courtroomprotocol for the defendant and that the defendant will be bound by and have toconduct himself/herself within the same rules as an attorney, that these rules are notsimple and that without legal advice his/her ability to defend himself/herself will behampered.
4. The right to proceed pro se usually increases the likelihood of a trial outcomeunfavorable to the defendant. . . URCCC 8.05.
. Taylor contends that his waiver of counsel was not knowingly and voluntarily made because the trial judge did not comply with these requirements. Specifically he contends that he was not informed that he had the right to counsel or that proceeding pro se substantially increases the likelihood of an outcome unfavorable to the defendant. Those allegations are incorrect.
. The first two requirements of the rule are that a defendant be informed of the right to counsel as well as the right to represent himself. Taylor was told that he had the right to counsel. He was initially appointed counsel by the court who was allowed to withdraw after Taylor hired another attorney. This attorney was also allowed to withdraw when Taylor hired yet another attorney to represent him. At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, Taylor expressed his concern that the court was attempting to impose a court appointed attorney on him and not let him select the attorney of his choice. The court responded by stating: "I want you to have any lawyer you want." The court went on to say: "I'm telling you, you can hire anybody you want to and I don't care what lawyer it is . . . you can have as many lawyers as you can pack in this courtroom."
. The remaining requirements of the rule are that the defendant be informed that he will be held to the same standard as an attorney and that proceeding pro se increases the likelihood of an unfavorable result. Both of these requirements were explicitly met by the trial court. The court stated: "I want you to know that you will be held to the same standards as a lawyer . . . that is, you are treated as if you have the knowledge and skill as an attorney . . . That means that you must comport yourself as an attorney does . . . ." The court went on to say that "it could result in problems if you do not have the legal skill and ability." Taylor responded "right. I understand that." At the trial the judge again asked Taylor if he understood that he would be held to the same rules and standards as an attorney, and he responded affirmatively.
. Taylor made an intelligent and informed waiver of counsel. "An accused could place the trial judge in a difficult situation by insisting on a pro se trial, and, upon conviction, claim that he/she did not have the benefit of counsel and did not knowingly waive counsel." Matthews v. State, 394 So.2d 304, 311 (Miss.1981). In fact, the trial court assured that Taylor's rights were protected during trial by instructing attorney Bambach to remain as standby counsel to assist. This arrangement has been called "hybrid representation," an appropriate response by the court to the demands of someone such as Taylor. Metcalf v. State, 629 So.2d 558, 562 (Miss. 1993).
. There is nothing more that the trial court could have done -- the court had no right to insist on Taylor's having counsel after
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|