Farretta v. California

Citation. Faretta v. Cal., 422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562, 1975)

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

CitationFaretta v. Cal., 422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562, 1975 U.S. LEXIS 83 (U.S. June 30, 1975)

Brief Fact Summary. Petitioner appealed from a conviction when his waiver of the right to counsel was denied.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. While there is a sixth amendment right to counsel, that does not abrogate the defendant’s right to self-representation.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

A prosecutor is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.

View Full Point of Law

Facts. Petitioner asked to represent himself, and after the trial Judge held a hearing to determine whether he could conduct his own defense, he was denied that. Faretta was then found guilty as charged and sentenced to prison when he was forced to accept a public defender. From this conviction, he appealed.

Issue. Whether a defendant may waive the right to counsel in the interest of self-representation.

Held. Justice Stewart, for the court, held “it is one thing to hold that every accused has the right to the assistance of counsel, and quite another to say that a State may compel a defendant to accept a lawyer he does not want.”

Dissent. In two dissents, both Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun write that there is nothing constitutional that requires a state to allow a defendant to conduct his own defense.

Discussion. Just as there is a sixth amendment right to counsel, a defendant also has the right to chose to represent himself.

Create New Group