The Volokh Conspiracy

Do you think it's a legit to make someone who is not competent to represent himself nonetheless stand trial? That is: Is someone who is not competent to represent himself really competent to stand trial?

I know the distinction. What I am asking is whether whether this distinction make sense?

Well, it was a 7-2 decision, so there's room for improvement in the encore.

Is it more impressive to write something that a 9-0 majority relies on, or is it more impressive to write 2 articles, one of which a 5-justice majority relies on and the other of which a 4-justice dissent relies on in the same case?

The other option is to strike while the iron is hot an negotiate for early tenure. ("It'll only get better from here, so you'd better lock me in before Yale makes me an offer.")

As someone who took Professor Hashimoto twice, I am glad to report she actually bothers to teach and is well regarded by her students, despite her . . . rigorous exams.

Whoa I'm kinda concerned that the supremes reliead on this article in their deciscion. As the law review actually warns it can't prove any causal relation at all. In fact I would be worried that people might choose to go pro se because they feel they shouldn't need a lawyer if they are innocent.

Really we need an independent estimation of the strength of the evidence to make this call.

Roger, the law review article presents the results of an empirical study based on data from databases concerning pro se felony defendants in federal courts and (all) state courts, not just NC.

And though I think it fair to be concerned about the practice of determining the scope of constitutional rights based on empirical data as a general matter, that is not what happened here. Rather, Prof. Hashimoto's article provided a reasoned rebuttal (though the case did not rest on it, of course) to the position advanced by Indiana and others, largely based on speculation and anecdotal evidence, that pro se felony defendants necessarily litigated to their detriment vis a vis represented felony defendants. Here, empiricism served to undercut an argument seeking to limit a constitutional right based on unscientifically tested assumptions, the latter being a far more scary basis for defining the scope of an important constitutional right.

In any event, kudos to Prof. Hashimoto for directly and substantively aiding the Court in the development of the law as well as demonstrating that law review articles are not slipping into jurisprudential oblivion.

the vast majority of pro se felony defendants - nearly 80% - displayed no signs of mental illness.

Well, no signs except for wanting to represent themselves.

How did feel to be have the Agony (Interview by Totenberg) and the Ecstasy (Cited by SCOTUS) in such a short period?

And in reverse too!

This is what happens when the Supreme Court's reasoning is SO off that they have to resort to "empirical analysis" from a law review article to support their awful, awful opinion published in a low-tier journal.