Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2024 February 6

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 6

Is there a "constitutional right to represent oneself" (pro-se) in court proceedings?

The U.S. constitution is held to include a Right to counsel.

Now, generally, a person who represents oneself is said "to have a fool for a client". but anyways...

My question is, does the constitution allow for the law in certain circumstances to ban self-representation? I.e require a party to be represented by a lawyer?

"Why do some (non-U.S) jurisdictions do exactly this?", I'm sure some of you may be asking.

Well, in trials for sexual offenses, it can be very traumatizing for the victim to be cross-examined by her rapist. Ergo, where I live (Australia) some states have introduced laws that state that in trials for rape and sexual assault, the defendant (i.e. the alleged perpetrator) is banned from personally cross-examining his alleged victim. He must have a lawyer do the job for him.

The same applies for "intervention orders/ domestic violence injunction orders/ stalking intervention injunction orders" The alleged stalker or domestic abuser is banned from personally cross-examining his victim. He is eligible for a public defender to represent him, however. Ditto in the family court , in cases where one party alleges domestic violence; the other party must have a lawyer cross examine the accuser.

(Note that these steps were unfortunately sometimes unbudgeted-for, and caused cost blowouts in the public defender offices who were swamped with demand to represent parties who previously would have been expected to represent themselves. Particularly in the "intervention orders" division. Since such orders are themselves "civil, not criminal" (though breaching them is a crime), people were previously not generally allocated a public defender for them).

OK - so that's how things work here in Australia. My question is regarding the good ol' U S of A.

Have any American courts ruled on the constitutionality of these sorts of laws? Does the "right to counsel" also infer a right to reject counsel, and go pro-se instead?

Would things differ in civil versus criminal proceedings?

@John M Baker: @Newyorkbrad: as our resident lawyers, would you be able to shed any light on this? Others who can dig up anything, feel free to contribute.

Obligatory disclaimer: I am not involved in any American litigation; this answer is for my personal interest only. Eliyohub (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It is certainly possible for a court to refuse self representation as happened to Ted Kaczynski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:D60:3500:E543:6F64:6409:3226 (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a U.S. right to self-representation in criminal proceedings, see McKaskle v. Wiggins. I'm not sure if there is a constitutional right to self-representation in civil proceedings, although in practice it is allowed and common, as discussed in our article on pro se legal representation in the United States. The right does not extend to corporate parties, which as artificial persons cannot represent themselves (even if they are single-person entities) and therefore must be represented by counsel. John M Baker (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

For those wondering about the apparent conflict between John M Baker's comment and the IP, the reason why the court could deny Ted Kaczynski's request seems to have been because of the manner in which it was made, coming 'after meaningful trial proceedings had begun and the jury had been empaneled' [1]. While a defendant has an undeniable right to represent themselves, they cannot use this right simply to delay proceedings '“[a] criminal defendant's assertion of his right to self-representation must be timely and not for purposes of delay;  it must also be unequivocal, as well as voluntary and intelligent.”' While Kaczynski said he did not need any delay, the trial court, and the majority of the appeal court disagree this was realistic. There was dissent which suggested the judge primary motivation was to avoid a spectacle, [2] [3] but OTOH, it's not clear to me that Kaczynski's request could have been so easily denied if he'd made it much earlier on. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Massachusetts became the sixth state admitted into the United States?

Wikipedia's front page says that on this date in 1788, Massachusetts ratified the Constitution of the United States and became the sixth state admitted into the Union. This doesn't seem right to me. The US Constitution didn't go into affect until 2/3rds of the then 13 states ratified the Constitution. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that while Massachusetts was the 6th state to ratify the constitution, the first 9 all entered the US at the same time? In fact, even that seems wrong since before the Constitution, the US was governed by the Articles of Confederation which Massachusetts ratified in 1778. I think most people would recognize that Massachusetts became part of the US on July 4th, 1776 when the United States declared independence from Great Britain. I'm not sure if the concept of "admission" to the Union even makes sense for the first 13 colonies since the United States didn't exist for them to be admitted into it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

QFK… I suspect you are not from Delaware (they make a BIG deal about being “the first”.) 😏 Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. They were the sixth state to ratify the constitution, but it did not take effect until the first nine had done so. The frontpage blurb is incorrect. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I brought it up on the talk page and they fixed it. --Golbez (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Just an observation: many sources list the states "in order of admission" when what they mean is "in order of ratifying the Constitution for the first 13, or of admission for the rest". It's so widespread that there's little point in pointing out that it's wrong. --142.112.220.136 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)