Erik's Response to "Pro Se"

The stories on defendants representing themselves are very interesting. The current economic downturn has had effects on pretty much every aspect of society, including the courts, which I think is often overlooked. Jorge Cruz's story, where a defendant present at a party where cocaine was found chose to represent himself while his brother and others pleaded guilty, was the most intriguing to me. The method of the pro se defendant's approach seemed to fly in the face of all jury instructions I have heard regarding bias. Both counsels, whether or not they represent themselves, are not supposed to SOLELY elicit sympathy as a means to influence the jury's opinion. Not only that, but according to the DA, the pro se didn't follow courtroom procedures well at all. He didn't play by the rules of evidence, and framed his questions unfairly to witnesses he knew. He eventually won the jury over by his "personal story." I think the judge in this case should have taken more precaution in advising and tutoring the pro se before the trial, or at least made sure he knew procedure better. This case also shows that no matter what the counsels say in jury instructions, people can always be influenced by empathy when deciding cases.


----
Erik J. King

More Responses to "Pro Se" program

The following is post to the blog for the This American Life episode titled Pro Se.

While I don't necessarily believe that psychiatry is evil, I do believe that it is rather inaccurate. As such, I don't believe that psychiatric evaluations should be permissible in court due to their inherently arbitrary nature, e.g. how the setting a person is in makes everything seem insane.
With regard to defending yourself in court, I think that "Tony's" is a perfect example of why people should not try and defend themselves. Here a person thought that they could out-wit the system only to be unduly caught in it. Furthermore, "Tony's" case exemplifies the fact that 1) the vast majority are too ignorant to represent themselves and 2) that the "plain English movement" is too little. "Tony's" case demonstrates the need for lawyers and an extension of the right to representation in court, no matter what type of case.

--
Wright,David R


Sara Sanfilippo

The topics discussed in This American Life radio talk show were astonishing. It was truly overwhelming to hear that the vast majority of Americans in civil and housing litigations are representing themselves in court because they are financially unstable. I am sure that these people know that their chances of winning are slim to none and that having a professional lawyer represent them would put them at a much better advantage; however, if they cannot afford to hire an attorney, their case still goes on and they have no choice but to represent themselves in court. It is a shame to hear this though because since they are amateurs, they do not possess the necessary skills and knowledge to win the case for themselves. Sadly, it boils down to, if you have the money, you can guarantee yourself of getting out of anything with the right lawyer (take O.J. Simpson for example), and if you do not have the money, you are simply out of luck. Granted, there are the rare exceptions such as in the case of Jorge Cruz but most people are not as fortunate as Jorge Cruz. Just as anyone, despite his or her financial circumstances has the right to a lawyer paid by the state in criminal law, the same procedure should apply to civil and housing law as well. The story about Tony was the by far the most interesting because it addressed the common misconception in our society, that being put in mental ward is much ???softer??? than prison. Tony???s story is extremely unfortunate, that after twelve years he still cannot manage to find his way out of the ward. However, I can understand how anything he does whether he is cheerful and happy or standoffish and set apart from the rest is diagnosed as mentally ill behavior. Once a patient is placed in a ward, their behavior and every move is under the microscope, which is exactly why Tony is still there. Everything he did seemed to be labeled as a characteristic of mental illness. As it would be nice to think that one day Tony may break free from the ward, as they said in the talk show it is much easier to get in the ward than it is to get out.

Another response to "Pro Se"

Scott Hyman

10/8/2009

Pro Se Blog Reaction



I was extremely surprised to find out that 1.8 million people represent themselves in court every year in New York alone. This is an astonishing number, and I have to imagine that it can only be due to a lack of common knowledge of the general public regarding the legal world. It is unfathomable that these people would attempt to represent themselves despite the fact that they have close to zero, if any, knowledge of the legal jargon or processes and that they basically go into the courtroom settings blind to any relevant information, as well as blind to the buzz saw that they are about to approach. The main reason people represent themselves is that they are not financially able to hire their own attorney, and this is a shame considering that hiring counsel with experience would inevitably increase a defendant’s chance of winning a case; this is one of the many problems with the legal universe today. I am actually currently doing an undergraduate research study for the University of Florida on Pro Se defendants, and I regularly witness defendants who would be much better off had they retained some sort of counsel.

-Scott Hyman

Response to "Pro Se"

It was surprising to learn so many people represent themselves in court. It seems rather unfair that in criminal court one gets assigned a defense attorney, but no other civil cases allow for a public defendant. With a recession in the economy, more and more people can???t afford to pay for a lawyer, and rightly so since it can actually be quite expensive. An amateur lawyer representing himself Pro se not only hinders his/her own well-being, but encumbers the order of the court, as seen in Cruz???s case. The story of Tony was the most interesting to me, since it addresses the problem of feigning mental insanity. It is rather ironic really that he successfully faked being insane, but is unsuccessful at actually being his sane self. Truly, the cases proposed in this episode of ???This American Life??? pose a conundrum that will need to be addressed in the near-future.
-Luci Cavanagh

Week Seven

Monday October 5th

Discussion of Annotated Bibliography

Wednesday

Listen to "Pro Se" an episode from This American Life


Friday

Annotated Bibliographies Due- at least three sources
Read pp. 805-812 on Negligence and Homicide

Week Four

Week Four

September 14th

* Discuss Assignment Two, Brief on Negligence Case, due September 18th
* Read: http://business.theage.com.au/business/time-to-create-the-write-stuff-20090217-8acp.html?page=-1
* Read: http://clarity-international.net/downloads/lwpp.pdf
* Read: "Hackbart v. Cincinatti Bengals" pp. 770-776
* Read: "Hot Coffee Spills" Section pp. 798-805

September 16th

* Introduction to Plain English Movement: basic rules
* Use in-class examples in order to simplify "legalese"
* Discuss types of negligence with respect to case readings from this and last week


September 18th

* Due: Assignment Two on Negligence
* Random selection of student's papers for mini-presentations and class debates
* Readings on Family Law, pp. 777-796

Taxi to the Dark Side Comment

This video reminded me of how I felt in 2004 when the news of the torture in Iraq broke. It wasn't so much the brutality of the torture in Abu Ghraib, though that was horrifying and reprehensible, but the possibility that it was sanctioned by the US government that shocked me. I believed then and I believe now that we have a duty as a global leader to uphold standards of human decency, and a wartime mentality does not supersede that obligation.

Mark Brown