The following is part of one of the citations that Bob provided:
Held: Neither Faretta 's holding nor its reasoning requires a State to recognize a constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal from a criminal conviction. Although some of Faretta 's reasoning is applicable to appellate proceedings as well as to trials, there are significant distinctions. First, the historical evidence Faretta relied on as identifying a right of self-representation, 422 U. S., at 812 -817, is not useful here because it pertained to times when lawyers were scarce, often mistrusted, and not readily available to the average person accused of crime, whereas it has since been recognized that every indigent defendant in a criminal trial has a constitutional right to the assistance of appointed counsel, see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 . Moreover, unlike the right recognized in Faretta, the historical evidence does not provide any support for an affirmative constitutional right to appellate self-representation. Second, Faretta 's reliance on the Sixth Amendment's structure interpreted in light of its English and colonial background, 422 U. S., at 818-832, is not relevant here. Because the Amendment deals strictly with trial rights and does not include any right to appeal, see Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651, 656 , it necessarily follows that the Amendment itself does not provide any basis for finding a right to appellate self-representation. Faretta' s inquiries into historical English practices, 422 U. S., at 821 -824, do not provide a basis for extending that case to the appellate process because there was no appeal from a criminal conviction in England until 1907. Third, although Faretta 's conclusion that a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to trial counsel must be honored out of respect for individual autonomy, id., at 834, is also applicable in the appellate context, this Court has recognized that the right is not absolute, see id., at 835. Given the Court's conclusion that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to appellate proceedings, any individual right to self-representation on appeal based on autonomy principles must be grounded in the Due Process Clause. Under the practices prevailing in the Nation today, the Court is entirely unpersuaded that the risk of disloyalty by a court-appointed attorney, or the suspicion of such disloyalty, that underlies the constitutional right of self-representation at trial, see id., at 834, is a sufficient concern to conclude that such a right is a necessary component of a fair appellate proceeding. The States are clearly within their discretion to conclude that the government's interests in ensuring the integrity and efficiency of the appellate process outweigh an invasion of the appellant's interest in self-representation, although the Court's narrow holding does not preclude the States from recognizing a constitutional right to appellate self-representation under their own constitutions. Pp. 3-12. Affirmed.
As a sum total, the other citations (not just the one cited) establish:
1) The right of self-representaion is not absolute.
2) A right of self-representaion on the trial level does NOT establish such on the higher levels.
3) Criminal trials may have limited rights of self-representaion where such is allowed in other trials.
4) Courts on all levels may establish rules for self-representaion that limit or prohibit such.
5) Courts on all levels may require pro se persons to have co-counsel who are accredited lawyers.
Under the rules of the U. S. Supreme Court, it never allows a person who is not accredited to practice before it, to argue a case before it. This means that attornies who have not been admitted to practice before it cannot argure a case before it. It should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final decision maker (Subject to the laws of Congress.) of its decisions. So, any appeal of a decision not to allow someone to argue a case before it must be made to the Court itself.
Yes, pro se person may apply to the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari. However, when the Court grants such a Writ, it always requests an attorney to argue the case pro bono. The request of the Court is considered such a honor that law firms are glad to accept and that attorney is appointed.
Author
Topic: 3ABN sued over child molestation! (Read 112551 times)
