High Court: Man With Schizophrenia Cannot Act as Own Lawyer

An Indiana man who has schizophrenia was found competent to stand trial for firing a gun at a store security guard after trying to steal shoes. As the New York Times reports, Ahmad Edwards then said he wanted to represent himself at trial - a request the trial judge denied, saying Edwards wasn't competent to act as his own lawyer. This despite the fact that the Constitution guarantees the right to self-representation.

Edwards sued on constitutional grounds, and the Indiana Supreme Court overturned his conviction. Now the US Supreme Court has ruled that yes, a mentally ill person may, in fact, be competent to stand trial but not competent to represent himself.

According to the report, "Noting that the court has referred to the right to self-representation as an aspect of individual dignity, Justice Breyer said dignity was lacking in the 'spectacle that could well result' from a mentally ill defendant’s efforts, which he said were 'at least as likely to prove humiliating as ennobling.' "

Say what? A constitutional right can be denied because a mentally ill defendant might be undignified? According to dissenting Justices Scalia and Thomas, the only reason previously accepted for denying self-representation is a threat to the orderliness of the trial. Fine! But as the dissenting opinion said, Edwards should have been given the chance to defend himself, and then if it became apparent he couldn't do it properly, that was the time to require him to have a lawyer.

So now even the Supreme Court has discriminated against the mentally ill. What's next? Maybe a diagnosis of bipolar disorder will automatically be deemed "probable cause" to issue a warrant for searching your house (Fourth Amendment). I'm not saying Edwards would have won his case had he been allowed to represent himself. But he should have had the opportunity to try.

~Marcia