Case Citator › Faretta v. California

Faretta v. California

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
422 U.S. 806
Decided
Confirmed treatments
5
Flagged citations read
315 of 315
Citing cases (total)
11,363
Treatment dates
1984–2018
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Faretta v. California is limited among the reviewed cases: all 315 flagged citations have been read, with the 5 confirmed treatments listed below. McKaskle v. Wiggins permitted unsolicited standby-counsel participation within defined safeguards; Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California confined the constitutional right to trial; and Indiana v. Edwards permitted compelled counsel for defendants competent to stand trial but not to conduct trial proceedings.
More on how this was screened

Commonwealth v. Ayers exempted experienced criminal-trial attorneys from a formal Faretta inquiry, while In the Interest of H.M.P. declined to extend the right to parental-termination proceedings. The other reviewed opinions applied Faretta's knowing-waiver, timeliness, unequivocal-request, and courtroom-conduct rules, reported one of these higher-court boundaries, or directed nearby adverse language at unrelated authorities, claims, and assignments of error.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

11,363 later cases cite Faretta v. California; 315 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Faretta v. California?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court rejected an absolute bar on unsolicited participation by standby counsel, holding that Faretta protects the defendant's control over the defense and the jury's perception of self-representation rather than categorical silence from counsel.

    McKaskle v. Wiggins · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In our view, both Faretta’s logic and its citation of the Dougherty case indicate that no absolute bar on standby counsel’s unsolicited participation is appropriate or was intended. ... In determining whether a defendant’s Faretta rights have been respected, the primary focus must be on whether the defendant had a fair chance to present his case in his own way. Faretta itself dealt with the defendant’s affirmative right to participate, not with the limits on standby counsel’s additional involvement.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court confined Faretta's constitutional self-representation holding to trial and declined to extend its reasoning to a defendant's direct appeal.

    Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Our conclusion in Faretta extended only to a defendant’s “constitutional right to conduct his own defense.” Id., at 836. Accordingly, our specific holding was confined to the right to defend oneself at trial. We now address the different question whether the reasoning in support of that holding also applies when the defendant becomes an appellant and assumes the burden of persuading a reviewing court that the conviction should be reversed. We have concluded that it does not.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court held that a state may require counsel for a defendant who is competent to stand trial but, because of severe mental illness, is not competent to conduct the trial personally.

    Indiana v. Edwards · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    This case focuses upon a criminal defendant whom a state court found mentally competent to stand trial if represented by counsel but not mentally competent to conduct that trial himself. We must decide whether in these circumstances the Constitution prohibits a State from insisting that the defendant proceed to trial with counsel, the State thereby denying the defendant the right to represent himself. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 6; Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975). We conclude that the Constitution does not forbid a State so to insist.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that experienced criminal-trial attorneys who represent themselves are not entitled to a Faretta hearing or inquiry.

    Commonwealth v. Ayers · Supreme Court of Kentucky · filed

    Unlike other jurisdictions, we dispense with the charade of combing the record for some shred of evidence that Faretta was satisfied. Instead of reducing the standard for a Faretta inquiry to an unrecognizable level, we expand this reasoning to its logical and more appropriate end. ... Therefore, we hold that criminal defendants who are experienced criminal trial attorneys are not entitled to a Faretta hearing or inquiry prior to representing themselves. This holding is not intended to disturb our prior decisions relating to various forms of hybrid representation as applied to non-attorneys.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Texas court declined to extend Faretta's criminal-trial self-representation right to parental-rights termination proceedings.

    In the Interest of H.M.P., Minor Child · Texas Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District · filed

    Counsel argues that like a criminal defendant a parent should have a constitutional right to represent herself based upon the constitutional rights at issue, citing Faretta v. California. MMG assumes the right exists and argues that the trial court erred in denying her that right. ... We find its reasoning persuasive. Accordingly, MMG’s first issue is overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Faretta v. California and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace