Answer

 DQ11: Should You Represent Yourself?

A party charged with a crime in the United States is afforded the right to a legal counsel. If the individual cannot afford to hire a counsel, then the state accords him/her a public defender/court-appointed counsel. However, some accused persons may decide to represent themselves without the help of a legal counsel in what is referred to as pro se; which translates to acting “on one’s own behalf” (Berger, 2016). One of the reasons which might lead to parties deciding to represent themselves is their inability to afford a lawyer coupled with their distrust towards the state-appointed counsel. Notably, some accused persons feel that the advocate will not deliver quality services. Additionally, others represent themselves because they understand their criminal case and believe that they are in a better position to address it (Berger, 2016). Moreover, people represented themselves because they want to control their lives as well as situations and consider a counsel as an intrusion to their lives.

One of the examples of cases where the defendant represented himself is that of Kolender v. Lawson [1983].  In this case, the defendant, Edward C. Lawson; a law-abiding African American, was subjected to various arrests as well as questioning and harassment by the police because of walking into a neighbourhood inhabited by the whites. After one of the arrests, he sought to challenge the existing California law which required persons who were found to be loitering or wandering on the streets to offer both “credible and reliable” identification to account for their presence in the event a police officer questions them. The defendant claimed that the California statute was “unconstitutionally vague.” By a majority of 7-2, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the California statute was an affront to the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of movement.