''McKaskle v. Wiggins'', 465 U.S. 168 (1984), is a

United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...

case in which the court considered the role of standby counsel in a

criminal trial Criminal procedure is the adjudication process of the criminal law. While criminal procedure differs dramatically by jurisdiction, the process generally begins with a formal criminal charge with the person on trial either being free on bail ...

where the defendant conducted his own defense (''

pro se ''Pro se'' legal representation ( or ) comes from Latin ''pro se'', meaning "for oneself" or "on behalf of themselves" which, in modern law, means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, ...

''). In this case the defendant claimed his Sixth Amendment right to present his own case in a criminal

trial In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information (in the form of evidence) in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal ...

was violated by the presence of a court-appointed standby counsel..

Circumstances

Carl Edwin Wiggins was on trial for robbery and chose to proceed ''

'' and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was overturned on the technicality, that the indictment was defective and Wiggins requested counsel for the second trial. The trial court appointed standby counsel to assist him if requested. Wiggins decided to defend himself and asked that the standby counsel be barred from interfering. Multiple times, both before and during the trial, Wiggins changed his mind regarding the standby counsel's role. Wiggins sometimes allowed or even requested standby counsels' participation. He was once again convicted. After his conviction, Wiggins moved for a new trial on the grounds that his standby counsel had interfered with his presentation of his own defense. This motion was denied by the trial court.

Appeals

When Wiggins had exhausted both direct appellate and state

habeas corpus ''Habeas corpus'' (; from Medieval Latin, ) is a recourse in law through which a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison official, t ...

, he filed a habeas petition in

Federal District Court The United States district courts are the trial courts of the U.S. federal judiciary. There is one district court for each federal judicial district, which each cover one U.S. state or, in some cases, a portion of a state. Each district cou ...

, claiming that standby counsel's conduct deprived him of his

constitutional A constitution is the aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organisation or other type of entity and commonly determine how that entity is to be governed. When these prin ...

right to conduct his own defense as guaranteed in ''

Faretta v. California ''Faretta v. California'', 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and Pro se legal representation in the United States, represent t ...

'' (1975). The federal court agreed that counsel should not interfere without permission but found that Wiggins' attorneys had not interfered and the appeal was dismissed. Upon appeal the

Court of Appeals A court of appeals, also called a court of appeal, appellate court, appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In much of ...

reversed, holding that Wiggins' Sixth Amendment right to represent himself was violated by the intrusive participation of the court-appointed standby counsel.

Decision

In a split 6–3 decision, the court found that Wiggins' right to present his own defense was not violated, since "it appears that he was allowed to make his own appearances as he saw fit and that his standby counsel's unsolicited involvement was held within reasonable limits." Judge Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, and Stevens joined. Blackmun concurred in the result. White filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan and Marshall joined. The decision was based on federal and state laws preserving a defendant's right to self-representation as guaranteed in ''Faretta''. Self-representation includes certain specific rights for a defendant to have his opinion heard. "The pro se defendant must be allowed to control the organization and content of his own defense, to make motions, to argue points of law, to participate in voir dire, to question witnesses, and to address the court and the jury at appropriate points in the trial. The record reveals that Wiggins was in fact accorded all of these rights."

Significance

This case set a precedent for the boundaries on the behavior of standby counsel by refining the position taken in ''Faretta v. California'' regarding standby counsels' role.

References

External links

* {{Sixth Amendment, counsel, state=expanded United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court United States Sixth Amendment self-representation case law 1984 in United States case law Legal history of Texas