Been a long while since i wrote on here, was reading on the Kansas defenders blog about a man who had his case reversed due to judicial error in NOT allowing the criminal defendant to go pro se.
Been busy but i am back the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights § 10 reads as follows:
§ 10. "In all prosecutions, the accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person, or by counsel;
Now what is wrong with this picture of the Kansas Courts NOT allowing a criminal defendant to proceed PRO SE, a most recent famous case Indiana -v- Edwards a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with a person who wanted to proceed pro se, was found COMPETENT to stand trial, but NOT so much in regards to representing himself.
Now all of the cases both state and federal, that i have read over these past years always refer to the U.S. Constitution and the 6th Amendment. in which the language is more lenient in regards to the assistance of counsel. And that has been interpreted as meaning that one could represent himself as set forth in the landmark case of FARETTA -v- CALIF 1975 case.
However i guess these appellate lawyers have not read the Kansas Const. bill of rights that i mention previously.
If there is anyone who reads this respond with your comments to email@example.com