NCJ Number
47340
Journal
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume: 28 Issue: 2 Dated: (WINTER 1978) Pages: 269-288
Date Published
1978
Length
20 pages
Annotation
THE PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-REPRESENTATION GUARANTEED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THAT RIGHT TO THE JURY'S NULLIFICATION POWER ARE DISCUSSED.
Abstract
THE ANALYSIS OPENS WITH A CONSIDERATION OF THE POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE FARETTA DECISION ON THE QUALITY OF THE DEFENDANT'S TRIAL PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION AND ON THE EFFICIENT USE OF COURTROOM TIME. MEASURES THAT MAY BE USED BY THE TRIAL COURT TO AMELIORATE THESE EFFECTS ARE SUGGESTED. THE ANALYSIS THEN TURNS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRO SE RIGHT AND THE JURY IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO IGNORE THE TRIAL JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW. IT IS ARGUED THAT IN THE HIGHLY CHARGED ATMOSPHERE OF A POLITICAL TRIAL, THE PRO SE LITIGANT HAS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK JURY NULLIFICATION, I.E., TO ASK THE JURY NOT TO APPLY THE LAW AS INSTRUCTED BY THE JUDGE. SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY IS IN REALITY UNAVAILABLE TO LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT JURY NULLIFICATION IS NOT OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE BASIC TENETS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE SEIZED UPON AS A REASON