CONTACT KILLERCOP

Faretta no doubt says...

"Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber." -U.S. v Faretta , 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA.

When speech is compelled, additional damage is done. Individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions.

Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning. -Thomas Jefferson

REPORT A GANG MEMBER.

Look, you know you have to look, there! ABOVE!! It's "a person, on the left," and "the person of another," on the right. Do you understand? No? Still Baffled? Click image below for the answer to the question, "What is a person and what is the difference between a person and the person of another?"

WHOIS

WSJ

2023 HIT LIST

TERMS OF USE

DISCLAIMER

PRIVACY POLICY

(c)1997-2023

THIS SPACE FOR SALE

A motion under Faretta– must be "unequivocal."

Held: “We hold that while a defendant may invoke his or her self-representation rights after a denial of a motion to substitute counsel, the invocation must be unequivocal.

Unequivocal

• admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion; "unequivocal evidence ...

• definitive: clearly defined or formulated; "the plain and unequivocal language of the laws"- R.B.Taney
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

ENTER THE ATTORNEYS:

"This is a confusing and fuzzy area of law."

A defendant can place conditions on self-representation and still make an unequivocal demand: e.g., “If I do not get new counsel, I want to represent myself.” Id.

But, if the defendant states, “If I am appointed standby counsel, I would like to represent myself,” then he has made an equivocal demand and Faretta isn’t triggered. Id. (?!?) {As intuitive as “conditions precedent” in Property law.}

The absurdity of this area of law is that these are usually indigent, uneducated clients who are struggling to speak to the court – often through a translator.

Deciding Faretta on phrase placement by an inarticulate defendant is, essentially, a quiet way of avoiding the train wreck of self-representation: not a bad thing from a corporate policy perspective in a commercial business, but a tough rule to understand.

How to Use: Those who represent indigent defendants in federal court will wince in recognition at the Mendez-Sanchez fact pattern. In addition to its primary holding on Faretta invocation, the decision also has an interesting and lengthy discussion on the frequently-misunderstood (by clients) “right” to new counsel.

1. the timeliness of the motion,

2. the adequacy of the court’s inquiry, and

3. whether the conflict was so great “as to result in a complete break-down in communication and consequent inability to present a defense.”

Id. at *4.

TWITTER (CENSORED 03.26.2023)

They all ignored their oaths, the facts, the rules, the laws, the 5th and 6th amendment and proceeded forward with a selective persecution in a secret hearing.

"Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel

With the above in mind, could you please help and make a small donation.

TO DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE BELOW.

NY TIMES HIT PIECE

FOX NEWS HIT PIECE

NBC NEWS HIT PIECE

MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE.

LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE.

SALES INQUIRIES CLICK HERE.

FAQ 1 - FAQ 2 - CONTEXT.

THIS SPACE FOR SALE

All Rights Reserved.