Morris Douglas R, Frierson Richard L
Indiana University School of Medicine, Idianapolis, IN, USA.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2008;36(4):551-7.
The right to represent oneself at trial is well-established, but not absolute. Recently, in Indiana v. Edwards, the United States Supreme Court considered whether states may demand a higher standard of competence for criminal defendants seeking to represent themselves at trial than that necessary for standing trial with attorney representation. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the Constitution allows states to employ a higher competency standard for pro se defendants. In this analysis of the Court's decision, the authors describe the facts of this case, the legal precedents framing the issues facing the Court, and the Court's rationale for its opinion. The ruling is considered in light of available research involving pro se defendants and whether this ruling is consistent with professional guidelines related to forensic psychiatric practice. Implications of the decision for forensic clinicians and limitations of the decision are discussed.
在审判中自行辩护的权利是既定的，但并非绝对的。最近，在“印第安纳州诉爱德华兹案”中，美国最高法院审议了各州对于寻求在审判中自行辩护的刑事被告，是否可以要求比由律师代理出庭受审所需的能力标准更高的标准。最终，最高法院裁定，宪法允许各州对自行辩护的被告采用更高的能力标准。在对最高法院这一裁决的分析中，作者描述了该案件的事实、构成最高法院所面临问题的法律先例，以及最高法院作出其意见的理由。根据涉及自行辩护被告的现有研究以及该裁决是否与法医精神病学实践相关的专业准则相一致来考量这一裁决。讨论了该裁决对法医临床医生的影响以及该裁决的局限性。
