J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 36:4:551-557 (2008)
Copyright © 2008 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
Pro Se Competence in the Aftermath of Indiana v. Edwards
Douglas R. Morris, MD and
Richard L. Frierson, MD
Dr. Morris is Volunteer Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN. Dr. Frierson is Professor of Clinical Neuropsychiatry, Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship Director, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, SC.
Address correspondence to: Douglas R. Morris, MD, Logansport State Hospital, IRTC #832, 1098 South State Road 25, Logansport, IN 46947. E-mail: drdmo{at}hotmail.com
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.
Copyright © 2008 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
