Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Westbrook v. Arizona
16 L. Ed. 2d 429
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1966-05-02
- Topic
- general
finding of competency to stand trial is not dispositive of issue of competency to waive counsel | finding of competency to stand trial is not dispositive of issue of competency to waive counsel | granting motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari | cautioning trial courts in their analysis of a defendant’s waiver of “fundamental, clear-cut rights” | stating defendant must not only desire to represent himself, but also be competent to waive his right to counsel; court is required to make a waiver determination | discussing competency to waive constitutional right to assistance of counsel and conduct a defense | "`This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused' " | “ ‘This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused’ ” | exclusion of third-party evidence in double homicide error; defendant proffered evidence of mixture of third-party’s blood, blood of one victim on defendant’s shoes | although court had decided defendant was competent to stand trial, further “inquiry into the issue of his competence to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel” was necessary | competency necessary to represent self greater than competency necessary to stand trial | competency necessary to represent self greater than competency necessary to stand trial | comparing competency to stand trial with competency to waive counsel | competence to waive assistance of counsel at trial
Citator
- Cited by
- 110 opinions
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. Although petitioner received a hearing on the issue of his competence to stand trial, there appears to have been no hearing or inquiry into the issue of his competence to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and proceed, as he did, to conduct his own defense. “The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused — whose life or liberty is at stake — is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 465; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506.
*151 From an independent examination of the record, we conclude that the question whether this “protecting duty” was fulfilled should be re-examined in light of our decision this Term in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
It is so ordered.