Who Can Represent a Defendant in Court
See also United States v. Lavriv, 568 F.2d 98 (8th Cir. 1977) (obligation of the trial judge to investigate when joint representation is made by a court-appointed or mandated defence lawyer, and “without such an investigation, the finding of waiver knowingly and intelligently will rarely, if ever, be confirmed by that court”); Abraham v. United States, 549 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Mari, 526 F.2d 117 (2d cir. 1975); United States v. Truglio, 493 F.2d 574 (4th Cir. 1974) (joint representation should lead the trial judge to “consider whether the defence is adversarial in any way”); United States v. DeBerry, 487 F.2d 488 (2d cir. 1973); United States ex rel. Davenport, 478 F.2d 203 (3d Cir. 1973) (with the note that “much is to be said for the rule.
which is based on prejudice and non-waiver where the court has not investigated the risks posed to defendants by joint representation`; United States v. Alberti, 470 F.2d 878 (2d cir. 1973); United States v. Foster, 469 F.2d 1 (1 cir. 1972) (lack of sufficient research shifts burden of proof to issue of discrimination against government); Campbell v. United States, 352 F.2d 359 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (in the case of joint representation, the court is “bound to determine whether each defendant is aware of the potential risks of this route and yet has knowingly chosen it”). Some States have taken a similar position; see, for example, State v. Olsen, —— Minn. ——, 258 N.W.2d 898 (1977). Not being a lawyer and not knowing the law is no excuse for not following court proceedings.
There will be cases where the court should require a separate lawyer to represent certain defendants despite the express wish of those defendants. The fact that the trial court does not require separate representation may: require a new trial, although the defendants have expressed a desire to continue with the same lawyer. The right to effective representation by a defence lawyer whose loyalty is unequivocal is so important to the proper administration of criminal justice that, in some cases, it must take precedence over all other considerations, including the explicit preference given to the accused concerned and their lawyer. But parents cannot represent their minors. Although parents can be the child`s representatives on court documents, they cannot be considered representatives in court. Article 44 (c) does not specify what special measures must be taken. This should be left to the discretion of the court, as the measures that best protect each defendant`s right to counsel may vary from case to case. One possible avenue of action for the court is to obtain a conscious, intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to separate representation because, as in Holloway v. Arkansas, supra, “a defendant may waive his right to counsel who is not impeded by a conflict of interest.” See United States v.
DeBerry, op. cit. cit., in which he states that defendants should be represented jointly only if “the tribunal concluded that” the tribunal concluded that. Everyone clearly understands the possibilities of a conflict of interest and waives any right in this regard. It should be emphasized that “a waiver of the right to separate representation should be accepted by the court only if the defendants have been advised of the probable dangers; and the voluntary nature of their renunciation is obvious. ABA standards for serving as a trial judge at age 45. United States v. Garcia, op. cit. cit., explains in detail what must be done to ensure an appropriate waiver: The court reporter sits near the witness box in the courtroom and records everything that is said (or presented as evidence) during the trial by typing it on a stenographic machine or making an electronic audio recording. This becomes the official record of the process. The court reporter also prepares a written transcript of the proceedings if either party appeals or requests a transcript.
Court reporters don`t just work in the courtroom. They also record statements in law firms and some conferences in judicial chambers. The vast majority of court reporters use stenotypie, a machine that translates keystrokes into symbols that correspond to speech. Some use a stenographic mask, others use a stenographic mask, repeat everything said in the courtroom in a mask connected to a tape recorder and transcribe it later. Finally, the electronic sound recording uses microphones placed in the courtroom to record the trial on a multi-track tape monitored by an employee of the office worker (who does not need to be trained as a court reporter). Investigators and probation officers assist judges in gathering specific information about defendants in criminal cases. Both question the accused and also research his background and lifestyle. They use what they learn to prepare reports for the judge. The information provided by the United States Pre-Trial Services Officer assists the judge in deciding whether or not to release the defendant pending trial and in determining the conditions that the defendant must meet while awaiting his hearing date. The investigator supervises accused living in the community and assists them with services such as placement and substance abuse treatment. The United States Marshals Service is the agency responsible for the security of the justice system.
The Marshals Service is a law enforcement agency and therefore works for the executive rather than the judiciary, although it provides a valuable service to the courts. The U.S. Marshals provide security inside the courthouse and judicial functions outside the courthouse. They issue arrest warrants, arrest people and arrest refugees. They transport defendants who are in custody to and from their trials and trials. There is a U.S. Marshal for each federal district, assisted by U.S. Marshals Deputy staff and judicial security officers. The absence of an investigation under Rule 44(c) would not, in itself, require the quashing of the conviction of a jointly represented defendant. However, as is currently the case, a reviewing court is more likely to assume that a dispute arises from joint representation if no investigation or investigation has been conducted.
United States v. Carrigan, op. cit. United States v. DeBerry, op. cit. On the other hand, the mere fact that an investigation under Rule 44(c) was conducted at the beginning of the case does not absolve the court of any liability in this regard. The obligation imposed on the court by Article 44(c) persists, so that, in a particular case, further investigations may be necessary at a later stage due to new developments indicating a potential conflict of interest. In New York, parking violations are administrative law and you do not need to be a lawyer to represent the respondents of parking tickets in New York. Such a non-legal representative is called a parking dealer. FYI. Whatever the reason, you have the right to represent yourself, to be your own attorney in all cases in California.
But just because you can represent yourself doesn`t mean you should.