Craft & Sheppard's Supreme Court Review

Sixth Amendment, Incompetence, Self-Representation, Right to Counsel & Confrontation 

In Indiana v. Edwards, the Court ruled no Sixth Amendment violation resulted when a trial court determined that a schizophrenic, delusional defendant was mentally competent to stand trial, but not mentally competent to represent himself pro se at trial.  In Rothgery v. Gillespie County, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel applies at the defendant’s first appearance before a judicial officer or magistrate, whether the DA as opposed to a police officer, was involved.  The right to counsel attaches when a defendant is told of the formal accusation against him and his liberty is restricted.  In Crawford v. Wash., 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause gave the accused the right actually to confront witnesses against him and rejected invitations to water down that right.  In Giles v. Cal., the Court determined that two testimonial exceptions to confrontation were established at the nation’s “founding:” dying declarations, and forfeiture by wrongdoing.  Focusing on forfeiture by wrongdoing, the Court made it clear that this exception required the accused by “means and contrivance” to procure or cause the absence of or detain the witness.  At common law, unless the killer’s purpose was to wrongfully prevent the victim from testifying, this exception did not extend to allow a typical murder victim’s statements, which was excluded unless it was a dying declaration or “confronted”.  Here, a domestic violence victim un-confronted statements to police weeks before her murder should have been excluded; the testimony was not a dying declaration and did not fit within “forfeiture by wrongdoing” exception.