Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Faretta v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth Amendmentright to self-representationpro sewaiver of counselself-representationpro seSixth Amendment

Facts

Faretta was charged with grand theft in California, and the trial judge initially appointed the public defender. Well before trial, Faretta clearly requested to represent himself, stating that he did not want the public defender, and the judge initially accepted his waiver after warning him that he was making a mistake and would receive no special favors. Before trial, the judge sua sponte held another hearing, questioned Faretta about hearsay and juror challenges, and concluded that Faretta had not made an intelligent and knowing waiver and had no constitutional right to conduct his own defense. The judge then reappointed the public defender, denied Faretta's request to act as cocounsel and his efforts to make motions on his own behalf, and required the defense to be conducted only through appointed counsel.

Issue

Does a defendant in a state criminal trial have a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so? More specifically, may a State force appointed counsel upon a defendant who clearly insists on conducting his own defense?

Rule

The Sixth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, implies a right of self-representation. A State may not force counsel upon a defendant who clearly and unequivocally elects to represent himself, so long as he knowingly and intelligently waives the benefits of counsel after being made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation; technical legal knowledge is not required to make that choice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Devin Ortiz is charged with burglary. At a pretrial hearing, he tells the judge, "I guess I could represent myself if I have to, but I'd rather have a different lawyer than the one appointed." The judge denies any request to proceed without counsel and keeps appointed counsel on the case.

If Devin is later convicted, which argument is strongest under the governing rule?

Explanation. The right of self-representation applies when the accused clearly and unequivocally declares a desire to represent himself and does not want counsel. A statement preferring different counsel, while only equivocally mentioning self-representation, is not the kind of firm election the majority required. The Constitution forbids forcing counsel on an unwilling defendant who truly chooses self-representation, but it does not require courts to treat ambiguous complaints about counsel as such a choice.