RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 <em>Pro Se</em> Competence in the Aftermath of <em>Indiana v. Edwards</em>
JF Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
JO J Am Acad Psychiatry Law
FD American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
SP 551
OP 557
VO 36
IS 4
A1 Morris, Douglas R.
A1 Frierson, Richard L.
YR 2008
UL http://jaapl.org/content/36/4/551.abstract
AB The right to represent oneself at trial is well-established, but not absolute. Recently, in Indiana v. Edwards, the United States Supreme Court considered whether states may demand a higher standard of competence for criminal defendants seeking to represent themselves at trial than that necessary for standing trial with attorney representation. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the Constitution allows states to employ a higher competency standard for pro se defendants. In this analysis of the Court's decision, the authors describe the facts of this case, the legal precedents framing the issues facing the Court, and the Court's rationale for its opinion. The ruling is considered in light of available research involving pro se defendants and whether this ruling is consistent with professional guidelines related to forensic psychiatric practice. Implications of the decision for forensic clinicians and limitations of the decision are discussed.