Conservatees have no Faretta rights, but do have the right to a Marsden hearing
Los angeles recently published a statement: Conservatees have no Faretta rights, but do have the right to a Marsden hearing. This sounds a little contradicting given what these represent.
To begin it is important to under Faretta and Marsden. The Faretta rights are the right for a defendant to have a trial without counsel representing them.. In this case the judge found that the defendant lacked the knowledge to reasonable deny counsel. Upon review the supreme court found that defendants hold the right to refuse counsel but cannot claim that they had ineffective counsel.
Marsden motions refer to the defendants right to dismiss counsel based on ineffectiveness. The defendant then can speak and address the judge directly. The defendant must demonstrate that the attorney has is not effectively defending them
How does this play a role in LPS.
In LPS cases the conservatee does not have the right to have a hearing without court appointed counsel representing them. However, the law continues to state that they have the right to Marsden motions which means that they do have the right to fire counsel. This begs the question why have the first law written given that the second undoes the purpose of the first. Several questions that arise as a result of this finding is what happens after if the conservatee dismisses counsel if they are not allowed to self represent themselves. Also why are conservatees deprived of this right? If they can demonstrate an understanding of their rights and the legal process through questioning why can they appear on behalf of themselves? More to come....
To begin it is important to under Faretta and Marsden. The Faretta rights are the right for a defendant to have a trial without counsel representing them.. In this case the judge found that the defendant lacked the knowledge to reasonable deny counsel. Upon review the supreme court found that defendants hold the right to refuse counsel but cannot claim that they had ineffective counsel.
Marsden motions refer to the defendants right to dismiss counsel based on ineffectiveness. The defendant then can speak and address the judge directly. The defendant must demonstrate that the attorney has is not effectively defending them
How does this play a role in LPS.
In LPS cases the conservatee does not have the right to have a hearing without court appointed counsel representing them. However, the law continues to state that they have the right to Marsden motions which means that they do have the right to fire counsel. This begs the question why have the first law written given that the second undoes the purpose of the first. Several questions that arise as a result of this finding is what happens after if the conservatee dismisses counsel if they are not allowed to self represent themselves. Also why are conservatees deprived of this right? If they can demonstrate an understanding of their rights and the legal process through questioning why can they appear on behalf of themselves? More to come....