6th Amendment

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Rashaad A. Imani v. William Pollard

Case No.: 14-3407

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and HAMILTON, Cir‐ cuit Judges.

Focus: 6^th Amendment

Trial judge improperly prevented appellant from representing himself pro-se in criminal prosecution in state court.

“Only in rare cases will a trial judge view a defendant’s choice to represent himself as anything other than foolish or rash. Ajudge does not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by explaining the risks to the defendant in detail and then giving him time to think it over before the defendant (but not the judge) makes the final decision. Wisconsin’s required colloquy serves precisely this purpose. See State v. Klessig, 564 N.W.2d 716, 721 (Wis. 1997). But in the end a competent de‐ fendant has a constitutional right to represent himself even if the judge thinks the defendant has no good reason to do so. It is the trial judge’s job to make sure the defendant makes that choice with open eyes. Nothing in Faretta or its progeny al‐ lows the judge to require the defendant to prove he is making the choice for a reason the judge finds satisfactory. See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834–35. The state courts denied Imani his Sixth Amendment rights by preventing him from representing himself on the ground that he did not persuade the trial judge

that he had a good reason to do so. That reasoning was simply contrary to Faretta.”

Reversed and Remanded

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.