Last week the Supreme Court handed down a decision that a man with schizophrenia did not have the right to represent himself in court without an attorney. Indiana v. Edwards raises questions about whether the legal standard conferring competence to stand trial differs from competence to represent oneself.

The 7-to-2 opinion upheld an Indiana's judge's decision not to allow Ahmed Edwards to conduct his own self-defense. Edwards spent three years in the hospital before he was deemed competent to stand trial. The New York Times reported in March that when he was representing himself portions of motions Edwards submitted to the judge were incoherent. An attorney was assigned but he and Edwards disagreed on the strategy for a defense.

An analysis in Scotusblog, notes that "states may now have one standard of mentally competency for putting a mentally impaired person on trial, and a higher standard that such a person would have to meet in order to be allowed self-representation." But the courts did not address that standard for self-representation in light of a ruling of mental competence.

Some expect this issue, which qualifies the Sixth Amendment, to be revisited.



