self representation defense

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Self-Representation

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Annotations

Self-Representation. —The Court has held that the Sixth Amendment, in addition to guaranteeing the right to retained or appointed counsel, also guarantees a defendant the right to represent himself. 378 It is a right the defendant must adopt knowingly and intelligently; under some circumstances the trial judge may deny the authority to exercise it, as when the defendant simply lacks the competence to make a knowing or intelligent waiver of counsel or when his self-representation is so disruptive of orderly procedures that the judge may curtail it. 379 The right applies only at trial; there is no constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal from a criminal conviction. 380

The essential elements of self-representation were spelled out in McKaskle v. Wiggins , 381 a case involving the self-represented defendant’s rights vis-a-vis “standby counsel” appointed by the trial court. The “core of the Faretta right” is that the defendant “is entitled to preserve actual control over the case he chooses to present to the jury,” and consequently, standby counsel’s participation “should not be allowed to destroy the jury’s perception that the defendant is representing himself.” 382 But participation of standby counsel even in the jury’s presence and over the defendant’s objection does not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights when serving the basic purpose of aiding the defendant in complying with routine courtroom procedures and protocols and thereby relieving the trial judge of these tasks. 383

378 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). An invitation to overrule Faretta because it leads to unfair trials for defendants was declined in Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S. Ct. 2379, 2388 (2008). Even if the defendant exercises his right to his detriment, the Constitution ordinarily guarantees him the opportunity to do so. A defendant who represents himself cannot thereafter complain that the quality of his defense denied him effective assistance of counsel. 422 U.S. at 834–35 n.46. The Court, however, has not addressed what state aid, such as access to a law library, might need to be made available to a defendant representing himself. Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9 (2005) (per curiam). Related to the right of self-representation is the right to testify in one’s own defense. Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (per se rule excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony violates right).

379 The fact that a defendant is mentally competent to stand trial does not preclude a court from finding him not mentally competent to represent himself at trial. Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S. Ct. 2379 (2008). Mental competence to stand trial, however, is sufficient to ensure the right to waive the right to counsel in order to plead guilty. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 398 (1993).

380 Martinez v. Court of App. of Cal., Fourth App. Dist., 528 U.S. 152 (2000). The Sixth Amendment itself “does not include any right to appeal.” 528 U.S. at 160.

381 465 U.S. 168 (1984).

382 465 U.S. at 178.

383 465 U.S. at 184.

Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Examining the Sixth Amendment Right to Self-Representation

On July 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in United States v. Lee , decided Daniel T. Lee’s Sixth Amendment claim under Faretta v. California , a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a criminal defendant’s right to represent herself. In Lee , the defendant, after filing a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence (through an attorney), moved to be allowed to discharge his attorney, waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and proceed pro se (i.e., representing himself). The magistrate judge who ultimately conducted the suppression hearing ordered that the hearing proceed with the defendant represented by counsel. At the conclusion of that hearing, the magistrate judge recommended to the district judge that the motion to suppress be denied and that the defendant be permitted to represent himself at trial, and the district judge accepted both recommendations.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that Lee suffered a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at his suppression motion and ruled that it would be inappropriate to apply harmless error analysis to the violation. In this column, I will consider the Seventh Circuit’s decision and examine more broadly why it might be valuable to have a right to self-representation (a right the exercise of which generally hinders, rather than helps, a criminal defendant’s case).

Self-Representation and Harmless Error Analysis

In Faretta , the U.S. Supreme Court announced that competent defendants have a Sixth Amendment entitlement to discharge counsel and represent themselves during criminal proceedings. This right was controversial, as Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun each filed dissents (both of which the other and Justice Rehnquist joined). But the contrary view prevailed.

We began this discussion with Lee’s case, which considered the defendant’s claims that he was entitled to represent himself at his suppression hearing and that the denial of that right should not be subject to harmless error analysis. Harmless error is a conclusion that courts are authorized to draw about many of the (inevitable) errors that judges make in presiding over criminal matters, where the error can often be said to have had no effect on the outcome of the proceeding. When there has been harmless error, the verdict or other outcome remains in place, while a finding of reversible error yields a reversal and perhaps the opportunity to repeat the trial or other proceeding without the error in question.

A finding of harmless error in a case involving a constitutional violation requires that the prosecutor prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not affect the outcome. Once the prosecutor meets that burden, even an egregious constitutional violation may not lead to a reversal and retrial. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Arizona v. Fulminante that when a judge, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, admits a defendant’s coerced confession into evidence at his trial, that error could, in theory, be harmless if the prosecutor were able to satisfy the burden of proving that the outcome would have been the same had the confession been properly excluded.

Some errors, however, are always reversible and not subject to harmless error analysis at all. One example occurs when the judge gives a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction in a criminal case. Such an error, under Sullivan v. Louisiana , is not subject to harmless error analysis. Another example is the denial of counsel. Such errors are structural and call into question the fairness and legitimacy of the entire proceeding in a way that cannot be readily severed from the rest of the process to determine their particular impact.

A denial of the right to self-representation is similar to these other errors in that having an (unwanted) attorney representing the defendant fundamentally alters the entire proceeding rather than constituting a discrete error subject to conceptual severance from the rest of the (legitimately conducted) process. In one respect, however, a denial of the right to self-representation is quite different from the other types of automatically reversible error: being represented by counsel almost always reduces the odds of conviction relative to self-representation. That is, unlike other structural errors, it would be most accurate to describe the denial of Faretta rights as likely to be harmless (in the sense of posing no increased risk of conviction) and perhaps best characterized as “helpful error.” As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in McKaskle v. Wiggins , then, “[s]ince the right of self-representation is a right that, when exercised, usually increases the likelihood of a trial outcome unfavorable to the defendant, its denial is not amenable to ‘harmless error’ analysis,” an explanation aptly quoted by the Seventh Circuit in Lee .

In Lee’s case, because he did have the opportunity to represent himself at trial, the Seventh Circuit ruled that he was entitled not to a new trial but to a new suppression hearing, where he would be able to argue to the district court in favor of suppressing the evidence that his attorney unsuccessfully challenged at his first suppression motion. If Lee fails (as the court plainly expects him to do), then he will have to live with the conviction. As the court said in Lee , “[a]llowed to do that [to redo his suppression motion, this time representing himself], he obtains everything to which he’s entitled.”

Does This Right Make Sense?

The court of appeals’ analysis is sound. Lee was denied his right of self-representation at the suppression motion, and the proper remedy for this type of error is to allow Lee to redo the motion on his own. But a perhaps more basic question may arise out of this Faretta case, namely, should a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to act in a way that increases the odds of his being found guilty?

“No” might be the correct answer to this question. In the words of Justice Blackmun, dissenting in Faretta , “[i]f there is any truth to the old proverb that ‘one who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,’ the Court by its opinion today now bestows a constitutional right on one to make a fool of himself.” A primary objective of the criminal justice system is to ensure that innocent people are acquitted of crimes that they did not in fact commit. Allowing a defendant (who might be innocent) to represent herself seriously compromises this central objective. In Chief Justice Burger’s words in his Faretta dissent, “Both [judge and prosecutor] are charged with the duty of insuring that justice, in the broadest sense of that term, is achieved in every criminal trial. That goal is ill-served, and the integrity of and public confidence in the system are undermined, when an easy conviction is obtained due to the defendant’s ill-advised decision to waive counsel.”

And a misguided defendant who believes—without foundation—that she can do a good job of representing herself in a courtroom should perhaps be protected from her foolishness rather than permitted to indulge it. Again from Chief Justice Burger’s dissent: “The system of criminal justice should not be available as an instrument of self-destruction.”

For those who believe that Faretta was correctly decided, however, a different answer is possible. That answer has to do with an individual’s interest in autonomy. As the majority in Faretta pointed out ominously, “[i]n the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber,” an institution that operated in the late 16 th and early 17 th centuries and that “has for centuries symbolized disregard of basic individual rights.”

To be sure, most instances of autonomy to harm oneself in the context of a criminal proceeding do not find expression in constitutional rights. And even in Faretta , the majority acknowledged that, as the Supreme Court held in Singer v. United States , “[t]he ability to waive a constitutional right does not ordinarily carry with it the right to insist upon the opposite.”

An arrested suspect has an autonomy interest in confessing her crimes to the police and may waive the Miranda right to remain silent in custody, but that interest in confessing to the police is not protected by a constitutional right. The suspect may waive her right to remain silent, and a knowing and voluntary waiver will stand as a bar against her subsequent claims of constitutional right, but there is no right to confess. If police refuse to listen to her confession, she is simply out of luck (at least along this rather narrow autonomy dimension) and cannot later be heard to complain in court that her rights were violated.

So what makes the right to self-representation different, if it is different? Many criminal defendants do not have the benefit of representation by their first choice of attorney. If they are poor (or simply lack the means to hire the particular person they want), then then they will have to “settle” for someone with whom they might not see eye to eye and who does not appear to the defendants to authentically speak on their behalf.

When this happens, defendants may feel a sense of alienation in the courtroom, being unable to speak for themselves while simultaneously having the person designated to speak for them not doing so to their satisfaction. When a defendant is so dissatisfied as to prefer to speak for herself than to be represented by the person assigned (or available) to speak for her, then insisting that she nonetheless endure the undesired representation is tantamount to silencing her at her own criminal proceeding. In the language of the Faretta Court, “although he may conduct his own defense ultimately to his own detriment, his choice must be honored out of ‘that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law.’”

My earlier reference to silencing the defendant is no accident, because the defendant enjoys another right the exercise of which can prove (at least some of the time) to be very damaging to her case: the right to testify on her own behalf. In Rock v. Arkansas , the Supreme Court held that, as a matter of Due Process, Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process, and a necessary corollary to the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination, a criminal defendant has the right to testify on her own behalf. If the defendant wishes to take the witness stand, even against the firm advice of her attorney, she is entitled to do so.

It may be clear in some cases that the defendant can only hurt herself by testifying (because prior convictions will make a horrible impression on the jury, or because she is a terrible witness who will wilt under cross-examination). Yet she may nonetheless insist on taking the stand and speaking to the jury about what happened.

The Faretta right takes this logic one step further. As a matter of autonomy, a person who stands accused of a crime is entitled to be heard. One way in which she may be heard is by testifying, if she so chooses, and she may do so no matter how dire the likely consequences. Another way in which a defendant may be heard is by presenting her case in court. Indeed, when courts and attorneys refer to arguments made by a lawyer during trial, they usually say that “the defendant/appellant/petitioner” made an argument instead of saying that “the lawyer” made an argument. This is because the lawyer, in an important sense, merges with her client, and what the lawyer says or decides is generally binding on the client.

Accordingly, if the client is uncomfortable with the representation and agency of her attorney and would prefer to go without representation—and represent herself—rather than continue with that attorney, a deep respect for the right to speak and respond to criminal charges demands that we accede to that request, however foolhardy. And as the majority observed in Faretta , “it is not inconceivable that in some rare instances, the defendant might in fact present his case more effectively by conducting his own defense. Personal liberties are not rooted in the law of averages.”

One way of thinking about the autonomy right here is to analogize it to the right to refuse medical treatment. Doctors might deem a medical treatment to be beneficial, and society might consider the right to receive that treatment, if it is desired, to be of paramount importance. Yet the person who chooses not to receive the treatment, if he is competent to understand the choice that he is making, is entitled to make that choice. This is true no matter how “foolish” the election, when viewed exclusively through a cost/benefit lens. In some cases, of course, the patient may turn out to have been wiser than his doctors.

Regardless of its wisdom, the purest expression of autonomy may be manifest precisely when its exercise defies a cost/benefit analysis. If so, then—like the right to refuse life-saving treatment—the right to speak on one’s own behalf, whether as a witness or as one’s own counsel, may rightfully belong with the individual whose life or liberty is actually at stake, and that individual is the criminal defendant herself.

Posted in: Constitutional Law , Criminal Procedure

Tags: Legal

One response to “Examining the Sixth Amendment Right to Self-Representation”

As a defendant who has clashed w/ his appointed counsel on trial strategy, I know what it’s like to wince and cringe as your lawyer says things on your behalf that you disagree with. It got to the point that I wanted to take the stand so I could finally explain the whole thing to the jury. My lawyer says to me “OK do you want to have your day in court or do you want a verdict of not guilty?” Taking the stand would’ve probably been a mistake. But if I’d acted as my own lawyer from start to finish and made the arguments I wanted to make, then I think the jury would’ve reached the same verdict as they did (not guilty). I also know what its like to be overwhelmed and intimidated enough to want to take the prosecutions deferred sentence deal and to have my appointed counsel say “ah c’mon, let’s go to trial we can win this.” and then to be awed by my lawyer’s cerebral discussion of the then recent “Crawford v. Washington’ SCOTUS decision and the intellectual back&forth that went on between my lawyer, the professorial judge and (to a lesser extent, the trainee prosecutor). A lawyer’s knowledge and skill is of great value to a defendant. A lawyer’s arrogance can also leave his client feeling as though he is unrepresented.

by Sherry F. Colb

• Find a Lawyer
• Legal Topics
• Personal Injury Law

Representing Yourself in Civil Court Lawsuits

(This may not be the same place you live)

  How Does Self-Representation Work In Civil Lawsuits?

A civil lawsuit is a legal action filed by a private individual or business against another private party who has caused them harm and for which they are seeking compensation. This in contrast to criminal cases, which are used to determine punishments for a defendant and can only be filed by a prosecutor or other legal representative of the government. In other words, a plaintiff to a civil lawsuit can request remedies like monetary damages or injunctions, not jail.

The right to self-representation, or “pro-se”, refers to the right to represent yourself in court, meaning without the assistance of an attorney . Although this “right” only extends to criminal defendants under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many civil courts have discretion to allow civil litigants to appear pro-se.

Whether a civil litigant has an actual “right” has been the subject of much debate. According to a federal statute, a person may plead and conduct their own cases “in all courts of the United States.” Thus, in most cases, it seems as if this statute has preserved the right to self-representation for civil matters as well.

However, the issue becomes more confusing when the entity that wishes to represent themselves is a corporation. This is because some courts do not allow corporations to appear pro se. On the other hand, individuals typically must appear pro se and cannot hire an attorney when a matter is being settled in small-claims court.

What Is the Advantage of Self-Representing?

Are there any disadvantages to self-representation, what are some guidelines if i decide to represent myself in civil court, is there help for self-representing litigants, do you really need a lawyer.

There are several advantages to self-representation. Some benefits of representing yourself in civil court include:

• Saving money on attorney fees;
• Having control over how to handle a case and employing legal strategies; and
• Ensuring that significant time will be dedicated to the case (e.g., lawyers are usually juggling several cases at once).

Additionally, litigants who choose to appear pro se often feel confident that they may understand the facts of their case better than anyone else could. They also tend to believe that they will fight harder since it is their case. However, this is not necessarily true because lawyers must follow their clients’ demands and have a professional obligation to make decisions with their client’s best interest in mind.

As with anything involving risks, there are also many drawbacks and disadvantages to self-representation. Some disadvantages to self-representation in civil cases include:

• Not knowing or understanding the intricacies of the law and court procedures;
• Being treated as a lawyer despite not having any professional training or experience;
• Meeting certain filing deadlines that a nonlawyer may not be aware of if they have never tried a case; and
• Losing a case or the opportunity to raise a defense that an attorney could have won or would have known to raise that defense, which could have reduced the damages.

If an individual decides to represent themselves in civil court, it is highly recommended that they take the following steps:

• Know the law: Understand any relevant laws that apply to the case, including both federal and state statutes, case law, local regulations, the rules of evidence, etc.
• Learn certain legal terms: It may be helpful to know some basic legal terminology (e.g., hearsay, relevance, testimony, etc.). Also, learn the roles of people in the courthouse (e.g., the court clerk, bailiff, etc.), and do not confuse the opposing party, their attorney, and a third-party representative (e.g., social worker as opposed to counsel).
• Follow proper procedures: There are many different legal procedures that lawyers must be aware of, such as the rules of a specific court, all local court rules, the process for filing documents with the court, and any statutes that provide instructions on certain procedures (e.g., filing deadlines, what to include in legal documents, etc.).
• Take notes: Write down details from the hearing and any meetings that may be important to the case. Also, jot down notes about any questions or topics that require further research afterwards.
• Be organized and well-prepared: For instance, spell check documents before filing them with the court, type-up important hand-written notes, use a folder to keep case materials organized and readily accessible, and so forth.
• Ask for help: Consult an attorney, a facilitator, a clerk, or some other resource before submitting documents or attending a hearing if a law or legal procedure does not make sense.

Additionally, some other tips that a pro se party should bear in mind include:

• Wear proper attire: Do not show up to a hearing dressed in flip-flops or sloppy clothes. While a suit is the best option when deciding on what to wear to court, if a person does not own one, they should strive to dress in a clean and neat manner (e.g., dress pants, work shoes, combed hair, etc.).
• Be respectful: Address the judge accordingly and be kind to those in the courtroom, including the opposing party, court reporters, the court clerk, the bailiff, and other court officers. Basically, practice good manners and behave appropriately.
• Show up on time: Do not arrive late to any hearings or meetings with the court. This may require visiting the courthouse or locating a particular courtroom before the hearing to reduce the chances of being late.
• Do not speak or interrupt: Unless an objection is being raised, never interrupt the hearing or speak to the opposing party. All questions and/or comments should be reserved until it is the individual’s turn to present their argument or to question witnesses. Even then, the only persons the pro se party should be addressing are the judge or presiding officer, and witnesses on the stand.
• Remember to say thanks: No matter the outcome of a case, always remember to thank the court (i.e., the judge) and the court staff. It is not only the polite thing to do, but it will also leave a good impression in case a person is required to return to court.

There are many resources for litigants who intend to represent themselves. For instance, some judges either may allow or require a pro se party to work with an attorney who will serve in an advisory capacity. In other words, the litigant will still be able to represent themselves before the court, but they will have a designated lawyer available to ask questions or provide assistance should they need guidance.

Having an attorney as an advisor may be helpful for when a pro se party does not understand difficult aspects of the law or certain legal procedures. In some cases, an advisory attorney may even accompany the pro se party to their hearing where they may need quick advice on procedural rules.

Aside from an advising attorney, self-representing litigants can consult multiple online resources and guides. For example, many courts provide links to self-help websites and forms. Some courts will even give tips on self-representation.

For basic legal research purposes, pro se parties can use Google scholar to gain access to cases and federal government agencies for rules. Also, depending on the state, there may be useful information on websites for state and local governments, legal aid societies, and pro bono firms.

Although there are many articles and third-party websites that offer advice on the topic, pro se parties should cross-reference this information with relevant laws and local court rules. Oftentimes, third-party advice applies generally and may omit important details, or they may inadvertently provide misinformation that does not apply to a particular state or court.

Finally, various state courts also offer “facilitators.” These are persons who can assist and direct a pro-se party to the right resources. However, they cannot offer any legal advice on what a litigant should do. If a court does provide the option of speaking with a facilitator, a litigant should know that it is often on a first-come, first-served basis. Thus, wait times to gain access to a facilitator can range anywhere between a few minutes to several hours.

So long as the law and/or court rules do not specify otherwise, the decision of whether to hire a lawyer or not is entirely up to you. However, keep in mind that representing yourself does come with many risks. Your success will depend on your knowledge of the law and your own abilities to argue a case. Thus, if your case involves a large sum of damages or a complex field of law, you should strongly consider retaining a lawyer.

At the very least, you should consult a local civil lawyer for further guidance. Your lawyer can provide general legal advice, answer any questions you may have, and explain complicated statutes or court procedures. You may also want to have a lawyer review your legal strategy to increase your chances of obtaining a successful outcome for your case.

Save Time and Money - Speak With a Lawyer Right Away

• Buy one 30-minute consultation call or subscribe for unlimited calls
• Subscription includes access to unlimited consultation calls at a reduced price
• Receive quick expert feedback or review your DIY legal documents
• Have peace of mind without a long wait or industry standard retainer
• Get the right guidance - Schedule a call with a lawyer today!

Need a Personal Injury Lawyer in your Area?

• Connecticut
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• West Virginia

Jaclyn Wishnia

LegalMatch Legal Writer

Original Author

Jaclyn started at LegalMatch in October 2019. Her role entails writing legal articles for the law library division, located on the LegalMatch website. Prior to joining LegalMatch, Jaclyn was a paralegal and freelance writer. After several years of working for both criminal defense and entertainment law firms, she enrolled in law school. While in law school, her law journal note was selected for first-round publishing, and can be found on various legal research databases. Jaclyn holds a J.D. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, specializing in both intellectual property law and data law; and a B.A. from Fordham University, majoring in both Journalism and the Classics (Latin). You can learn more about Jaclyn here. Read More

Jose Rivera

Managing Editor

Preparing for Your Case

• What to Do to Have a Strong Personal Injury Case
• Top 5 Types of Documents/Evidence to Gather for Your Personal Injury Case

Related Articles

• Pre-Settlement Lawsuit Funding
• Gross Negligence
• Filing a Lawsuit Anonymously
• Understanding Texas Personal Injury Law
• Slip and Fall Injuries at Work
• Fraudulent Concealment
• Florida Personal Injury Law
• What Is a Deposition? What Do I Say?
• Intervening Causes Lawyers
• Collateral Source Rule
• Medical Lien Law
• Personal Injury Liability: Car Rental Agencies
• Personal Injury Liability: Contribution and Indemnity
• Strict Liability Lawyers
• Negligence: Law, Theory, and Lawyer Near Me
• Proper Court For A Personal Injury Lawsuit
• Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act
• Failing to Answer a Summons in a Personal Injury Claim
• How Much Is Your Personal Injury Claim Worth?
• Collect My Court Judgment
• Collect My Court Judgment from Deposit Accounts
• Maritime Personal Injury Lawyers
• Personal Injury Claim
• Sued for Personal Injury
• Personal Injury Elements
• What to Do If You Are Injured
• Legal Debt Collection Limits
• Vicarious Liability Law
• Settling Your Case
• Railroad Laws

Discover the Trustworthy LegalMatch Advantage

• No fee to present your case
• Choose from lawyers in your area
• A 100% confidential service

How does LegalMatch work?

Law Library Disclaimer

16 people have successfully posted their cases

Self-Representation: Pro se Cross-Examination and Revisiting Trauma upon Child Witnesses

• Interdisciplinary Review
• Published: 18 October 2018
• Volume 1 , pages 77–95, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Sue D. Hobbs 1 &
• Gail S. Goodman 2  

1086 Accesses

Explore all metrics

In the United States, the right to confront one’s accusers at trial is one of the key components of the adversarial legal process. As a part of this process, defendants are permitted to represent themselves if they decide to do so voluntarily ( Faretta v. California 1975 ). As cross-examination of witnesses is considered essential to the adversarial legal system, child victims can be faced with being personally cross-examined by defendants. In cases involving vulnerable witnesses, such as child abuse victims, there is concern that being cross-examined by the defendant can be highly problematic and create more trauma over and above being cross-examined by a defense attorney. In the United States, there are no laws that explicitly forbid defendants from cross-examining their own victims, and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. We discuss relevant legal traditions in the United States, laws and procedures followed by other countries that use the adversarial system, current psychological research on cross-examination of child witnesses, the need for further research, and recommendations for ways the United States can protect the rights, well-being, and personal security of vulnerable children.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Domestic Child Torture – Identifying Survivors and Seeking Justice

Domestic Child Torture: Identifying Survivors and Seeking Justice

Representing Victims Who Have Been Subject to Violent Sexual or Reproductive Crimes

Terms vary and include “party in person,” “litigant in person,” “defendant pro se,” and “unrepresented defendant,” all of which indicate that the defendant has chosen not to be represented by an attorney.

Depending on the specific language, the Scandinavian term is Barnahus or Barnehus .

In some cases, children awaiting testimony have in fact been murdered (Waldman 1999 ).

Some extant experimental analogues to simulated investigations and courtrooms may be controversial. This includes studies in which parents have been “offenders” who in some experimental conditions have been instructed to encourage their children to lie to an interviewer; these studies, however, are conducted with safeguards to the children as approved by appropriate Institutional Review Boards.

Adams, M., Goodman-Delahunty, J., James, G., McColl, R., Shaw, J., & Tidbury, M. (2003). Questioning of complainants by unrepresented accused in sexual offence trials (NSW law reform commission report 101). Retrieved from New South Wales website: http://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Publications/Reports/Report-101.pdf

Alink, L. R. A., Cicchetti, D., Kim, J., & Rogosh, F. A. (2012). Longitudinal associations among child maltreatment, social functioning, and cortisol regulation. Developmental Psychology, 48 , 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024892 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, J. A. (1997). The sixth amendment: Protecting defendants’ rights at the expense of child victims. John Marshall Law Review, 30 , 767–802.

Google Scholar  

Applegate v. Commonwealth , 299 S.W.3d 266 (Ky. 2009).

Arizona v. Padilla, 364 P. 3d 479 (Ariz. App. 2015).

Bala, N., Lee, J., & McNamara, E. (2001). Children as witnesses : Understanding their capacities, needs, and experiences. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 10 , 41–68. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009429602266 .

Batterman-Faunce, J. M., & Goodman, G. S. (1993). Effects of context on the accuracy and suggestibility of child witnesses. In G. S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving children's testimony (pp. 301–330). New York: Guilford.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Loss, sadness and depression (Vol. III). New York: Basic Books.

Breyer, S. (2015). The court and the world: American law and the new global realities . New York: Random House.

Brodsky, S. L. (2004). Coping with cross-examination and other pathways to effective testimony . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Book   Google Scholar  

Cashmore, J. (2008). Innovative procedures for child witnesses. In H. L. Wescott, G. M. Davies, & R. H. C. Bull (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 203–218). Hoboken: Wiley.

Cassidy, M. (2016). Ex-minuteman Chris Simcox found guilty of child molestation. The Republic . Retrieved from http://www.azcentral.com .

Child Victims’ and Child Witnesses’ Rights, 18, U.S.C. § 3509 (2011).

Cicchetti, D., Rogosh, F. A., Gunnar, M. R., & Toth, S. L. (2010). The differential impacts of early physical and sexual abuse and internalizing problems on daytime cortisol rhythm in school-aged children. Child Development, 81 , 252–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01393.x .

Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2005). Child maltreatment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1 , 409–438. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144029 .

Collins, K., Harker, N., & Antonopoulos, G. A. (2017). The impact of the registered intermediary on adults’ perceptions of child witnesses: Evidence from a mock cross examination. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research, 23 , 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9314-1 .

Comment. (1973). The right to appear pro se: The Constitution and the courts. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 64 , 240–249. https://doi.org/10.2307/1142993 .

Cox, E. W. (1852). The advocate, his training, practice, rights, and duties . London: John Crockford.

Criminal Code, R.S.C, § 486.3 (1985).

Criminal Procedure Act 51 § 107A (1977).

Cronch, L. E., Viljoen, J. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2006). Forensic interviewing in child sexual cases: Current techniques and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11 , 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.07.009 .

Cross, T., & Whitcomb, D. (2017). The practice of prosecuting child maltreatment: Results of an online survey of prosecutors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 69 , 20–28.

Davies, E., Henderson, E., & Seymour, F. W. (1997). In the interests of justice? The cross-examination of child complainants of sexual abuse in criminal proceedings. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 4 , 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719709524912 .

Davies, G. M., & Wescott, H. L. (1999). Interviewing child witnesses under the memorandum of good practice: A research review . London: Home Office.

Davis, S. L., & Bottoms, B. L. (2002). Effects of social support on children’s eyewitness reports: A test of the underlying mechanism. Law and Human Behavior, 26 , 185–215. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014692009941 .

Dorsen, N. (2005). The relevance of foreign legal materials in U.S. constitution cases: A conversation between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 3 , 519–541. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moi032 .

Eastwood, C., & Patton, W. (2002). The experiences of child complainants of sexual abuse in the criminal justice system . Retrieved from Criminology Research Council – Australian Institute of Criminology website: http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/eastwood.pdf .

Eastwood, C., Patton, W., & Stacy, H. (1998). Child sexual abuse & the criminal justice system (Trends & Issues Series No. 99) . Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website: https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi099

Edwards, V., Dube, S., Felitti, V., & Anda, R. (2007). It’s OK to ask about past abuse. American Psychologist, 62 , 327–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X62.4.327 .

Epstein, J. (2007). The great engine that couldn’t: Science, mistaken identifications, and the limits of cross-examination. Stetson Law Review, 36 , 727–784.

Evidence Act (New Zealand), § 23F (1908).

Evidence Act (New Zealand), § 95 (2006).

Fan, M. (2014). Adversarial justice’s casualties: Defending victim-witness protection. Boston College Law Review, 55 , 775–801.

Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 (1975).

Fed. R. Crim. Proc. Rule 44.

Fed. R. Evid. Rule 611(a).

Fields v. Murray , 49 F.3d 1024 (4th Cir. 1995).

Fogliati, R., & Bussey, K. (2014). The effects of cross-examination on children's reports of neutral and transgressive events. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19 , 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12010 .

Fogliati, R., & Bussey, K. (2015). The effects of cross-examination on children's coached reports. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21 , 10–23.

Goldfarb, D. A. (2018 ). Child maltreatment and adult legal attitudes: The role of adult attachment and psychopathology . Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Davis, CA.

Goldfarb, D. A., & Goodman, G. S. (2014). Cross-examination’s big effect on the criminal system’s smallest witnesses: How the judiciary can alleviate the negative effects of cross-examination. Chronicle . London: International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates.

Goodman, G. S., Bottoms, B. L., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Rudy, L. (1991a). Children’s testimony about a stressful event: Improving children’s reports. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1 , 69–99. https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.1.1.05chi .

Goodman, G. S., Levine, M., Melton, G. B., & Ogden, D. (1991b). Craig v. Maryland. Amicus brief to the US Supreme Court on behalf of the American Psychological Association. Law and Human Behavior, 15 , 13–30.

Goodman, G. S., Levine, M., & Melton, G. B. (1992a). The best evidence produces the best law. Law and Human Behavior, 16 , 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0104480 .

Goodman, G. S., Taub, E. P., Jones, D. P. H., England, P., Port, L. K., Rudy, L., & Prado, L. (1992b). Testifying in criminal court: Emotional effects on child sexual assault victims. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(5) , Serial No. 229. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166127 .

Goodman, G. S., Tobey, A. E., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., Orcutt, H., Thomas, S., Shapiro, C., & Sachsenmaier, T. (1998). Face-to-face confrontation: Effects of closed-circuit technology on children’s eyewitness testimony and jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 22 , 165–203. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025742119977 .

Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Bulkley, J., & Shapiro, C. (1999). Innovations for child witnesses: A national survey. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5 , 255–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.2.255 .

Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., & Ogle, C. M. (2009). Child maltreatment and memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 61 , 325–351. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100403 .

Griffiths, C. T., Cousineau, D. F., & Verdun-Jones, S. N. (1980). Appearance without counsel: Self-representation in the criminal courts of the United States and Canada. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 4 , 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.1980.9688707 .

Hall, S., & Sales, B. (2008). Courtroom modifications for child witnesses . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hansard, L. (1998) at col 1353. Retrieved from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980212/text/80212-27.htm

Hayes, D., & Bunting, L. (2013). “Just be brave”—The experiences of young witnesses in criminal proceedings in Northern Ireland. Child Abuse Review, 22 , 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2242 .

Henry, J. (1997). System intervention trauma to child sexual abuse victims following disclosure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12 , 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012004002 .

Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Horowitz, D. (2006). Dynamics of forensic interviews with suspected victims who do not disclose abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30 , 753–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.10.016 .

Hicks-Bey v. United States, 649 A2d 569 (D.C. 1994).

Hobbs, S. D., Goodman, G. S., Block, S. D., Oran, D., Quas, J. A., Park, A., & Baumrind, N. (2014). Child maltreatment victims’ attitudes about appearing in dependency and criminal courts. Children and Youth Services Review, 44 , 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.001 .

Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970).

J. Papa Rao vs Government of A.P. and Ors., 2002 (5) ALD 748, 2003 (1) ALT 357.

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938).

Jonker, G., & Swanzen, R. (2007). Intermediary services for child witnesses testifying in South African criminal courts. International Journal of Human Rights, 6 , 90–113.

Judiciary Act, 1 Stat. 73, § 35 (1789).

Klemfuss, J. Z., Milojevich, H. M., Yim, I. S., Rush, E. B., & Quas, J. A. (2013). Stress at encoding, context at retrieval, and children’s narrative content. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116 , 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.07.009 .

Klika, J. B., & Conte, J. R. (Eds.). (2017). The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment . New York: Guilford.

Lemons, S. (2016). Ex-minuteman leader’s desire to personally cross-examine his child victims could go before U.S. Supreme Court. Phoenix New Times. Retrieved from http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com

LeSage, P. J., & Code, M. (2008). Report of the review of large and complex criminal case procedure . Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General website: https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/lesage_code/

Lininger, T. (2005). Bearing the cross. Fordham Law Review, 74 , 1353–1423.

Marcus, P. (1982). The Faretta principle: Self representation versus the right to counsel. William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications, 550–573. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/565

Maryland v. Craig , 497 U.S. 836 (1990).

Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895).

McEwen, B. S., & Gianaros, P. J. (2011). Stress- and allostasis-induced brain plasticity. Annual Review of Medicine, 62 , 431–435. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-052209-100430 .

McKaskle v. Wiggins , 465 U.S. 168 (1984).

Morris v. Slappy , 461 U.S. 1 (1983).

Müller, K., & Tait, M. (1997). The child witness and the accused’s right to cross-examination. Tydskrif Vir die Suid Afrikaanse, 3 , 519–530.

Myers, J. E. B. (1992). Evidence in child abuse and neglect cases (2nd ed., Vol 1). New York: Wiley.

Myers, J. E. B. (1993). A call for forensically relevant research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17 , 573–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(93)90079-K .

Myers, J. E. B. (2017). Cross-examination: A defense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23 , 472–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000131 .

Myklebust, T. (2017). The Nordic model of handling children’s testimonies. In S. Johansson, K. Stefansen, E. Bakketieg, & A. Kaldal (Eds.), Collaborating against child abuse (pp. 97–119). Cham: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Nathanson, R., & Saywitz, K. J. (2003). The effects of the courtroom context on children’s memory and anxiety. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 31 , 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318530303100105 .

Nathanson, R., & Saywitz, K. J. (2015). Preparing children for court: Effects of a model court education program on children’s anticipatory anxiety. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 33 , 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2191 .

National Children’s Alliance. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/

National Crime Victim Law Institute (2017). Navigating the perils of pro se: How to protect your client from cross-examination by a pro se defendant. Retrieved from National Crime Victim Law Institute website: https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/24850-navigating-the-perils-of-pro-se-how-to-protect .

Oei, N. Y. L., Everaerd, W. T. A. M., Elzinga, B. M., Van Well, S., & Bermond, B. (2006). Psychosocial stress impairs working memory at high loads: An association with cortisol levels and memory retrieval. Stress, 9 , 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253890600965773 .

Omoto, M. (2014). Judicial system and finance for civil litigation in Japan. Paper presented to the 24 th annual RIAD CONGRESS , Sevilla, Spain.

Padfield, N. (2012). The right to self-representation in English criminal law. Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, 83 , 357–375. https://doi.org/10.3917/ridp.833.0357 .

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480, U.S. 39, 51 (1987).

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).

Quas, J. A., & Goodman, G. S. (2012). Consequences of criminal court involvement for child victims. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18 , 392–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026146 .

Quas, J. A., & Lench, H. C. (2007). Arousal at encoding, arousal at retrieval, interviewer support, and children’s memory for a mild stressor. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21 , 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1279 .

Quas, J. A., & McAuliff, B. D. (2009). Accommodating child witnesses in the criminal justice system: Implications for death penalty cases. In R. F. Schopp, R. L. Wiener, B. H. Bornstein, & S. L. Willborn (Eds.), Mental disorder and criminal law. Responsibility, punishment, and competence (pp. 79–102). New York: Springer.

Quas, J. A., Bauer, A., & Boyce, W. T. (2004). Physiological reactivity, social support, and memory in early childhood. Child Development, 75 , 797–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00707.x .

Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Alexander, K. W., Edelstein, R., Redlich, A. D., . . . Jones, D. P. H. (2005). Childhood sexual assault victims: Long-term outcomes after testifying in criminal court. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 70 , Serial No. 280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2005.00342.x .

Ram, J. (1873). A treatise on facts as subjects of inquiry by jury (3rd ed.). New York: Baker, Boorhis, & Co. Retrieved from https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/20311883 .

Ramaite v The State, ZASCA 144 (2014).

Righarts, S., O'Neill, S., & Zajac, R. (2013). Addressing the negative effect of cross-examination questioning on children’s accuracy: Can we intervene? Law and Human Behavior, 37 , 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000042 .

Saywitz, K. J., & Nathanson, R. (1993). Children’s testimony and their perceptions of stress in and out of the courtroom. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17 , 613–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(93)90083-H .

Saywitz, K. J., Snyder, L., & Nathanson, R. (1999). Facilitating the communicative competence of the child witness. Applied Developmental Science, 3 , 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0301_7 .

Saywitz, K. J., Larson, R. P., Hobbs, S. D., & Wells, C. (2014). Listening to children in foster care: Eliciting reliable reports from children . Review of influential factors . Retrieved from The National Board of Health and Welfare website: http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/publikationer2015/2015-1-17 .

Saywitz, K. J., Wells, C. R., Larson, R. P., & Hobbs, S. D. (2016). Effects of interviewer support on children’s memory and suggestibility: Systematic review and meta-analyses of experimental research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , Online first publication , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016683457 .

Schneider, W. E. (2015). Engines of truth . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Schudson, C. B. (1987). Making courts safe for children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2 , 120–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626087002001011 .

Sevier, J. (2014). The truth-justice tradeoff: Perceptions of decisional accuracy and procedural justice in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20 , 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000009 .

Sexual Offences Procedure and Evidence (Scotland) Act § 288C (2002).

Slobogin, C. (2009). Mental illness and self-representation: Faretta, Godinez, & Edwards. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7 , 391–411.

Smyth, J. W. (1988). The art of cross-examination . NSW Bar Association Bar News.

State v. Carrico , 91 Wash. App. 1043 (1998) unpublished.

State v. Crandall , 120 N.J. 649, 577 A.2d 483 (1990).

State v. Sigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 556 A.2d 112 (1989).

Tye, M. C., Amato, S. L., Honts, C. R., Devitt, M. K., & Peters, D. (1999). The willingness of children to lie and the assessment of credibility in an ecologically relevant laboratory setting. Applied Developmental Science, 3 , 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0302_4 .

Tyler. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22 , 103–136.

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

U.S. Const. amend. VI.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau (2018). Child maltreatment, 2016 . Retrieved from the Children’s bureau website: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment .

Underwood, R. H. (1997). The limits of cross-examination. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 21 , 113–129.

Waldman, A. (1999). Boy, 8, a witness in a murder case, is found slain with his mother. The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com .

Wellman, F. L. (2009). ABA classics: The art of cross-examination . Washington DC: American Bar Association.

Westcott, H. L., & Page, M. (2002). Cross-examination, sexual abuse and child witness identity. Child Abuse Review, 11 , 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.739 .

Whitcomb, D., Goodman, G. S., Runyan, D., & Hoak, S. (1994). The emotional effects of testifying on sexually abused children . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Wigmore, J. H. (1904). A treatise on the system of evidence in trials at common law (Vol. 2.). Boston: Little, Brown.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (UK), §§ 34–35 (1999).

Zajac, R., Irvine, B., Ingram, J. M., & Jack, F. (2016). The diagnostic value of children’s responses to cross-examination questioning. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 34 , 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2215 .

Zajac, R., O’Neill, S., & Hayne, H. (2012). Disorder in the courtroom? Child witnesses under cross-examination. Developmental Review, 32 , 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.006 .

Zajac, R., Westera, N., & Kaladelfos, A. (2017). The “good old days” of courtroom questioning: Changes in the format of child cross-examination questions over 60 years. Child Maltreatment, 23 , 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559517733815 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Alice Lustre, Lisa Ahlers, and Deborah Goldfarb for their feedback and consultation. We also thank Jack Wilenchik for inspiration and encouragement. Writing of this article was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (No. 1424420) and the National Institute of Justice (No. 2013-IJ-CX-0104).

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the National Institute of Justice.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Child Development, College of Education, California State University, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA, 95819, USA

Sue D. Hobbs

Center for Public Policy Research and Department of Psychology, University of California, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

Gail S. Goodman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sue D. Hobbs or Gail S. Goodman .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hobbs, S.D., Goodman, G.S. Self-Representation: Pro se Cross-Examination and Revisiting Trauma upon Child Witnesses. Int. Journal on Child Malt. 1 , 77–95 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-018-0005-z

Download citation

Published : 18 October 2018

Issue Date : November 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-018-0005-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Defendant pro se
• Self-represented defendant
• Child witness
• Cross-examination
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Barkan Research

Providing a Bridge to Justice

Understanding Self-Representation in Court

In the legal world, the concept of self representation, also known as “pro se” or “pro per” representation, is an essential aspect of the justice system. It allows individuals to represent themselves in a court of law without an attorney. While the right to represent yourself in court is a fundamental one, it comes with both advantages and challenges. This blog post will delve into what self-representation is, explore the legal definitions of pro se and pro per, and shed light on the implications of representing oneself in court.

What is Self-Representation?

Self-representation, in a legal context, refers to the act of an individual representing themselves in court without the aid of an attorney. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Faretta v. California, 95 S.Ct. 2525 (1975) solidified the right to self-representation. This right is guaranteed under the principle of “pro se” or “pro per,” meaning “for oneself” in Latin. The right to self-representation is rooted in the notion that every person has the right to access the courts and defend their interests, regardless of their financial situation or legal knowledge.

Legal Definitions of Pro Se and Pro Per

The terms of “pro se” and pro per” are used interchangeably to refer to self-representation in court, but they may have varying usage in different jurisdictions.

Pro se: The term “pro se” is commonly used in federal and many state courts in the United States. It is derived from the Latin phrase “in propria persona,” which translates into “in one’s own person.” A pro se litigant represents themselves in court, preparing and presenting their case without the assistance of legal counsel.

Pro per: The term “pro per” is another term for self-representation used in some jurisdictions, especially in California. It also originates from Latin, short for “propria persona,” which shares the same meaning as “pro se.” In essence, a pro per litigant is person who appears in court and advocates for their rights without the aid of an attorney.

Advantages to Self-Representation

a. Cost savings: One of the primary benefits of self-representation is cost savings. Hiring a lawyer can be expensive and for individuals with limited financial resources, representing themselves may be the only viable option.

b. Personal knowledge and control: Self-representation allows individuals to have direct control of their case and legal strategy. They are intimately involved in every aspect of their defense or claim, which can be empowering for some litigants.

c. Increased access to justice: By providing the right to self-representation, the legal system aims to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to present their case, regardless of their economic background.

d. Learning experience: The process of representing oneself can be a valuable learning experience. Litigants often gain a deeper understanding of the legal system, their rights, and the intricacies of their case.

Challenges and Disadvantages to Self-Representation

a. Complex legal procedures: Navigating the legal system can be daunting, particularly for those without legal training. Court procedures, rules of evidence, and legal jargon can be overwhelming, making it difficult for self-represented litigants to effectively present their case.

b. Lack of legal knowledge: Legal cases often involve complex issues and nuanced arguments. Without a legal background, individuals may struggle to interpret and apply relevant laws and precedents to their case effectively.

c. Emotional stress: Court proceedings can be emotionally charged, especially if the case involves sensitive matters like divorce, child custody, or personal injury. Self-represented litigants may find it challenging to remain composed and focused during the process.

d. Unequal negotiating power: Facing opposing parties or their legal representatives can put self-represented litigants at a disadvantage during negotiations or settlement discussions. Experienced attorneys may exploit this imbalance to secure favorable outcomes for their clients.

e. No future claim of ineffectiveness: By engaging in self-representation in a criminal case, one cannot subsequently present an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal or during the post-conviction process.

The Importance of Knowing When to Seek Legal Representation

While self-representation is a fundamental right, it is essential to recognize that it may not be suitable for all legal matters. Some cases are highly complex or involve significant stakes, necessitating the expertise of an experienced attorney. Knowing when to seek legal representation can significantly impact the outcome of a case. Here are some situations where hiring an attorney is advisable:

a. Complex legal issues: If your case involves intricate legal matters or areas of law unfamiliar to you, consulting an attorney is crucial to understanding your rights and building a strong defense or claim.

b. High stakes cases: In cases with substantial financial or personal consequences, such as criminal charges, large monetary claims, or custody battles, having a skilled attorney by your side can make a significant difference.

c. Time constraints: Legal proceedings often have strict deadlines for filing documents and responding to motions. If you have limited time to prepare, hiring an attorney can ensure that everything is handled efficiently and in a timely manner.

d. Mediation and settlement negotiations: When seeking a settlement or engaging in mediation, having an attorney an bolster your position and help you achieve a favorable resolution.

My Final Thoughts

Self-representation, whether as pro se or pro per, is an essential aspect of the justice system that enables individuals to access the courts and advocate for their rights. While it offers several advantages, including cost savings and personal control, it also comes with challenges related to legal knowledge, court procedures, and emotional stress.

Deciding whether to represent oneself or seek legal representation is a critical choice that should be based on the complexity of the case, the stakes involved, and the litigant’s familiarity with the legal system. Ultimately, the right to self-representation reinforces the principle of access to justice and ensures that everyone has an opportunity to have their day in court, regardless of their financial resources.

If you or someone you know will be representing themselves in any stage of a criminal proceeding, they need The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations . This one book contains over 6,600 criminal case citations addressing more than 200 legal topics, including Pro Se Representation. If the case is a Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit, order The Colossal Book of Civil Citations . This book has all the necessary information to successfully litigate a prisoner’s Section 1983 lawsuit through self-representation. Our books are in stock and ready for immediate shipping to you or someone incarcerated.

Share this:

Pitfalls of Self-Representation in a Criminal Case: A Comprehensive Guide

In the legal realm, the decision to represent oneself in a criminal case is often viewed as a risky venture. While individuals have the right to self-representation , known as “pro se” representation, navigating the complexities of criminal law without legal expertise can lead to numerous pitfalls and challenges. This blog aims to shed light on the potential drawbacks and dangers of self-representation in a criminal case, highlighting the importance of seeking professional legal counsel.

Understanding the Legal System

One of the primary pitfalls of self-representation is the lack of understanding of the legal system. Criminal law is intricate and nuanced, with a myriad of rules, procedures, and protocols that can be overwhelming for someone without legal training. From filing motions and conducting legal research to presenting evidence and cross-examining witnesses, each step requires a deep understanding of legal principles and courtroom etiquette.  It should also be noted that most judges do not like dealing with criminal defendants that represent themselves because they don’t understand that they will be treated the same as a lawyer.  This means you have to understand all of the applicable statutes, rules, local rules, judges’ rules, and proper court etiquette.

Legal Knowledge and Strategy

Effective legal representation requires not only knowledge of the law but also strategic planning. Experienced criminal defense attorneys are well-versed in case law, precedents, and defense strategies that can significantly impact the outcome of a case. Without this expertise, individuals may struggle to build a strong defense, negotiate plea deals, or navigate complex legal arguments effectively.  In addition, if the self-represented party makes any type of statement that implicates or admits to any part of the alleged crime, that statement will be used against them by the prosecution.

Case Preparation and Investigation

Another critical aspect of criminal defense is case preparation and investigation. Criminal attorneys have access to resources such as investigators, expert witnesses, and forensic analysts who can uncover crucial evidence, challenge prosecution claims, and provide valuable insights into the case. Self-representation by individuals may lack the resources and legal expertise needed to conduct thorough investigations, potentially overlooking vital information that could impact the case’s outcome.

Procedural Errors and Missteps in Self-Representation

The legal process is governed by strict procedures and deadlines. Failure to adhere to these procedural requirements can result in serious consequences, including the forfeiture of important rights or the dismissal of key evidence. Self-represented individuals are more prone to making procedural errors or missing crucial deadlines, which can significantly jeopardize their defense and legal rights. There is no special treatment given to a criminal defendant who chooses self-representation.

Emotional and Psychological Impact

The emotional and psychological toll of navigating a criminal case without legal representation should not be underestimated. Criminal proceedings can be highly stressful, emotionally draining, and anxiety-inducing, especially for individuals facing serious charges that can result in a significant prison sentence if the individual loses the case. Attorneys not only provide legal guidance but also offer emotional support, helping clients navigate the complexities of the legal system while managing their emotional well-being.

Inadequate Legal Resources for Self-Representation

Access to legal resources and support is essential for mounting a robust defense. Attorneys have access to legal libraries, research databases, and professional networks that enable them to gather relevant legal precedents, statutes, and case law to support their arguments. Self-represented individuals may struggle to access these resources, putting them at a disadvantage in court.

Complexity of Evidence and Legal Arguments

Presenting complex legal arguments and analyzing evidentiary issues requires a deep understanding of the law. Attorneys are trained to evaluate evidence, challenge witness testimony, and identify legal issues that can strengthen their clients’ defense. Self-represented individuals may struggle to navigate evidentiary rules, object to improper evidence, or effectively counter prosecution arguments.

Negotiating Plea Deals and Sentencing

In many criminal cases, negotiations for plea deals or sentencing considerations play a crucial role in the outcome. Attorneys can leverage their knowledge of the law, case facts, and mitigating factors to negotiate favorable plea agreements or advocate for leniency during sentencing. Self-represented individuals may lack the negotiation skills and legal acumen needed to secure favorable outcomes in these negotiations.

Lack of Objectivity and Perspective

Emotions can run high in criminal cases, making it challenging for individuals to maintain objectivity and perspective. Attorneys provide an objective viewpoint, analyzing case facts, legal issues, and potential outcomes with a clear and rational mindset. Self-represented individuals may struggle to separate emotions from legal decisions, potentially making impulsive or detrimental choices in their defense strategy.

In conclusion, the decision to self-represent in a criminal case is fraught with potential pitfalls and challenges. From navigating complex legal procedures to building a robust defense and negotiating favorable outcomes, the expertise and guidance of a skilled criminal defense attorney are invaluable. While individuals have the right to represent themselves, seeking professional legal counsel can significantly enhance their chances of achieving a successful defense and protecting their legal rights.  If you are charged with a crime in a criminal case, the highly-rated team at Kenney Legal Defense can help.  Call today for a free case quote.

By using our website, you consent to the use of cookies and tracking technologies as outlined in our privacy policy.

What Are The Pros and Cons Of Representing Yourself In Court?

Defending yourself in court is uncommon in our legal system, but there are instances where it does occur. The majority of people represent themselves in court for a variety of reasons. In criminal trials, a defendant may not want to pay or cannot afford a private counsel, or they may consider that a public defender would not represent their best interests throughout the trial, or their trial may be straightforward, and they believe counsel is not needed.

There are also cases where a defendant might distrust the system and believes that deviating from the norm constitutes a declaration of resistance. Another major reason might be that a defendant is already in jail and may embrace the benefits of pursuing their own case, such as access to the library. 

One of the most important realizations to have if you want to represent yourself is that you will be viewed in the same respect as an experienced attorney and will be expected to comprehend the laws as well as abide by the good etiquette and decorum of the court.

Common Legal Terms

Laws and judicial systems have their own language, and if you don't understand even the most basic terminology, you may be lost and highly confused throughout a proceeding. Many of the most often used terminology in court originated from Latin. Such words as Habeas Corpus (That you have the body), Per Curiam (By the court), and Pro Se (On one’s own behalf). We've compiled a list of some of the most commonly used legal words to assist you in comprehending some of the terminology used during a trial. The following legal phrases are important to understand since they may come up in conversations with your lawyer, legal documents, or even current events.

Plea Bargain

In many cases, a case is handled outside of the courtroom and does not even go to trial. This occurs when both parties reach an agreement in a procedure known as a plea bargain. Parties agree to a plea bargain for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to the following: 

• By avoiding a trial, both parties save money and time.
• Avoiding the possibility of a victim in a case reliving the memories of a horrible crime
• The prosecution does not trust what the jury might rule on in a jury trial. 
• The defendant may be able to escape a heavier sentence.

The plea bargaining process is mostly confidential, and the specifics are only revealed to the public once it is announced in court. This can avoid the extensive attention that comes with trials, particularly those involving high-profile clients. 

However, there are times when the plea agreement is subject to court approval, and there are times when the judge may disregard the plea bargain and proceed to trial. 

Verdict 

When the jury makes a decision in a dispute, it is referred to as the verdict. During a criminal trial, the jury will either find the defendant guilty or not guilty. In a civil matter, the jury will rule in favor of the plaintiff or the defense. If the jury finds in favor of the plaintiff, the defense will be accountable for compensating the plaintiff for the resulting damages. 

After the jury has rendered its judgment, it is customary for either party's counsel to request that the jury be polled. During this procedure, each jury member will rise and be asked individually if they agree with the decision. Once the polling is finished, the court will accept the verdict and declare the trial over. 

Oral or written evidence delivered by a witness under oath, affidavit, or deposition during a trial or other legal proceedings is referred to as testimony . During the course of the proceedings, witnesses for the defense and the plaintiff will be called to the stand. The witness is under oath while on the stand, and whatever they say is considered testimony and truth. Suppose the opposing side demonstrates through evidence and cross-examination that a witness is lying during your testimony. In that situation, they can dispute the testimony, rendering it useless and riddled with flaws. 

A grand jury is made up of 16 to 23 members who hear evidence from the U.S. attorney, who serves as the prosecutor in federal criminal matters. The grand jury decides if there is "probable cause" to suspect the person committed a crime and should face prosecution. If the grand jury believes there is sufficient evidence, the defendant will be indicted.

In the United States, the grand jury serves as an investigating body and can meet for as long as a year if necessary. The grand jury's capacity to undertake its investigations is unrestricted. The grand jury may request that the court obtain further evidence, such as witness testimony and document subpoenas. Ultimately, the grand jury serves as a barrier between the government and the people.

Standard of Proof 

The Standard of Proof is defined by Merriam-Webster as the amount of certainty and degree of evidence required to establish proof in a criminal or civil action. Three of the most common standards for proof are Clear and Convincing Evidence, Beyond Reasonable Doubt, and Preponderance of Evidence.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt is a standard of proof that is more directed toward criminal cases. The beyond reasonable doubt standard mandates authorities to demonstrate, by evidence, that the accused defendant is the lone person accountable for the act.

In the majority of civil cases/lawsuits and administrative hearings, the Preponderance of Evidence standard asserts that a party must show its claim or position by a preponderance, which is defined as dominance in weight, force, importance, etc. In personal injury and breach of contract disputes, a preponderance of evidence means that a party has proven that its version of the facts, causes, damages, or responsibility is more likely than not correct. Unless otherwise specified by law, this requirement is the easiest to meet because it applies to all civil cases.

When the plaintiff fulfills the burden of proof by demonstrating that their allegations have a greater than 50% chance of being true, the preponderance of evidence standard is applied. If a claim can be proven to have a higher possibility of being true than untrue, the burden of proof is met. Additionally, civil law cases are often subject to the preponderance of evidence tests.

Lastly, the Clear and Convincing Evidence standard is developed from the Preponderance of Evidence standard and requires evidence to establish that the issue at hand is very probable. This standard applies to civil proceedings and may appear in some types of criminal trials. This standard can also be used to establish that the evidence search was voluntary.

Burden of Proof 

The plaintiff is the person that took the case to court; therefore, they will have the burden of proving their argument is justified. The burden of proof is frequently divided into two concepts: burden of production and burden of persuasion.

The burden of proof may include, but is not limited to, the following, depending on the jurisdiction in the United States:

• Beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law.
• In will disputes, there is clear and convincing proof of fraud.
• Probable cause for obtaining a warrant or making an arrest.
• Reasonable belief as part of establishing probable cause. 
• Reasonable suspicion in cases involving police stops and searches. 

In a legal system, the burden of proof is critical to the result of a case. The law requires determining who is in charge of presenting evidence that supports or refutes a claim. It also outlines how much proof is necessary to achieve that goal.

What Are Some Of The Challenges of Representing Yourself?

Lack Of Knowledge - Contrary to popular belief, viewing courtroom dramas can never provide someone with the legal understanding necessary to defend a case in court efficiently. Criminal defense attorneys study the law for years in law school and continue to refine their abilities in court throughout their careers. Attorneys are trained to be extensively versed in all court processes. What you see in law dramas is merely that, a drama. The fact that even lawyers facing criminal accusations retain the assistance of other lawyers to represent them in court should emphasize this point.

Lack Of Experience - In some cases, the self-represented defendant may be more knowledgeable about their case than anybody else. While this may be true, it does not imply that you should represent yourself. Knowing your case does not indicate that you understand how the legal system operates. In the vast majority of instances, the defendant will be up against a seasoned litigator who has tried numerous cases and fully knows the trial process. Defendants representing themselves will be at a significant disadvantage in comparison to the opposing counsel, not only in terms of knowing and comprehending the large quantity of legislation but also in terms of knowing and understanding the individuals in the court. Most experienced attorneys are acquainted with judges, clerks, and bailiffs. Knowing the individuals in these positions does not guarantee success in court. It will, however, greatly assist in knowing how individuals want things to flow, what they want to hear, what they don't want to hear, what buttons not to press, and what they are lenient on. This is particularly true when it comes to the judge. 

Clouded Judgment - When someone represents oneself, their judgment may be affected since they are solely concerned with themselves. For example, a defendant may ignore the evidence and fight with emotions, ultimately undermining the defense. This is why having a lawyer advocate their client's interests comes in handy because the lawyer will debate the evidence and facts of the case without bringing emotion into the equation. Furthermore, when you argue with your emotions, you may produce unneeded interruptions that upset the judge and court and eventually waste the time of the jury. 

Right To Self Representation

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that in all criminal proceedings, the accused has the right to a timely and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district in which the offense was committed. The Supreme Court concluded in the historic Faretta v. California case in 1975 that the sixth amendment implies an independent constitutional right of self-representation that a defendant may exercise. However, one of the requirements that were set in place was that the individual seeking to self-represent oneself must waive the right to counsel willingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. 

Even if you have the constitutional right to self-represent, it is never recommended. Self-representation is a risky and tough duty for someone who does not completely comprehend the intricate details of our legal system. That is why you must consult with an experienced attorney who will be able to assist you at every level of the trial. 

Sovereign Citizen

If you have watched the cases of defendants defending themselves, you may have heard someone refer to themselves as sovereign citizens. The FBI describes sovereign citizens as anti-government extremists who believe that, even though they live in the United States, they are independent or "sovereign" from the country. Furthermore, sovereign citizens believe that they are not only not required to respect the laws but that they are fully immune from them. Most employ conspiracy theories or false allegations to legitimize their status as sovereign citizens. 

The case of Darrell Brooks v. The State of Wisconsin is one of the most recent and well-watched trials in which the defendant claims sovereign citizen status. During the trial, Darrell Brooks heaved numerous accusations against the court and the judge's legal grounds for hearing this case, including questioning her oath of office or whether she had even taken the oath of office, requesting proof of subject matter jurisdiction , and claiming that there is no plaintiff in his case because a plaintiff must be a living and breathing human being, not an entity. 

Although many courts and jurisdictions recognize the term "sovereign citizen," it has no definite significance in our legal system. As in the Darrell Brooks case, Judge Durrow recognized the accusations, took notes, and proceeded with the trial. Even though the sovereign citizen movement has grown in popularity in our legal system, it never works because it lacks legal foundations. So claiming to be a sovereign citizen is not the greatest idea since it will not in any way benefit you in your trial. 

Why You Should Hire An Attorney

It is always a good idea to hire a lawyer whether you are representing yourself in civil court or representing yourself in criminal court. Court processes may be intimidating, time-consuming, and even confusing at times. Furthermore, if you are representing yourself, you might gravely jeopardize your case if you fail to file crucial documents on time or if you file the wrong document entirely. 

Having a lawyer on your side may help you gather evidence for your defense, exchange information through the discovery process, negotiate plea bargains, and settle a dispute before it goes to trial. Seasoned attorneys also have access to a large network of specialists who can comb through the material and uncover flaws that can help you and your attorney contest the evidence in your case. 

 Furthermore, without the necessary legal knowledge, you may be unable to discern if critical evidence against you was obtained unlawfully or whether a witness' testimony contradicts previous statements. And, at each point during the investigation, was the evidence handled appropriately by the crime lab? Your lawyer will be aware of these developments and may be able to have the evidence suppressed.

While it is lawful for anybody not to employ an attorney, each circumstance is unique, and court processes are quite fluid. In some cases, failing to hire an attorney can result in broken agreements, lost claims, or even prison time. That is why it is critical that you employ a seasoned and well-educated attorney to assist you in seeking the justice you deserve.

Contact Us Today

Read more legal news.

Settlement Fund Payouts for Abuse at Youth Development Center in NH Reach $66M

Federal Judge Rejects Trump’s Bid for New Trial in E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case, Upholds $83M Judgment

$44M Awarded in a Wrongful Death Lawsuit of an ISU Graduate Killed While Driving for Lyft

U.S. Realtor Group’s $418M Antitrust Settlement Receives Preliminary Approval

IL Jury Awards $45M in a Mesothelioma Case Against Kenvue, Inc. and J&J

City of Philadelphia Reaches a $110M Settlement in an Opioid Lawsuit Against Walgreens

Jury Awards $5.5M to Family of CT Man Who Died After Doctors Failed to Properly Diagnose and Treat Him

A Philadelphia Judge Rejects a $25M Jury Verdict in Truck Crash Case

$32.5M Settlement Reached Against a PA Hospital in Birth Injury Case

Dallas Jury Returns a $37.5M Verdict Against an Electric Utility Company in Fatal Crash With Truck Driver

City of Los Angeles Will Pay $21M to a Man Injured by a Falling Street Lamp Part

GA Jury Awards Nearly $70M in a Kroger Parking Lot Robbery and Shooting Case

Appelman Law Firm - Minneapolis DWI Attorney

Call Now for a FREE   Consultation:

The pros and cons of representing yourself in a criminal case in minnesota.

by Avery Appelman

If you need to defend yourself in court, you can choose to do it yourself. However, before you do, let’s review the pros and cons of representing yourself in a criminal case in Minnesota.

The Potential Benefits of Self-Representation

Here’s a look at some of the potential benefits to representing yourself in court.

Cost Savings – One significant advantage of representing yourself in a criminal case in Minnesota is the substantial cost savings it can offer. Legal proceedings can be financially draining; hiring an attorney involves hefty fees. By choosing self-representation, you can avoid these expenses, which can benefit individuals with limited financial resources. Instead of paying for legal counsel, you can allocate those funds elsewhere, such as covering court fees or other essential costs related to your case. However, it’s important to note that while cost savings are appealing, they must be weighed against the potential risks and complexities of handling your legal matters. Making an informed decision requires careful consideration of your specific situation’s financial aspects and intricacies!

Control And Autonomy – Another compelling reason individuals opt for self-representation in Minnesota criminal cases is the heightened sense of control and autonomy it offers. When you represent yourself, you can make critical decisions about your case. You can choose your defense strategy, negotiate with prosecutors, and present your arguments as you see fit. This level of control can be empowering and align with your interests and values. Furthermore, representing yourself can help protect your privacy since you’re not required to disclose sensitive information to a third party, such as an attorney. You maintain full authority over your case, which can be particularly appealing when safeguarding your personal and legal matters. However, it’s crucial to remember that with this control also comes responsibility, as you’ll need to thoroughly research, prepare, and execute your legal strategies effectively.

Learning Experience – Engaging in self-representation in a Minnesota criminal case can offer an invaluable learning experience. By taking on the legal aspects of your case personally, you immerse yourself in a hands-on educational opportunity. You gain insights into the complexities of the legal system, understand court procedures, and become familiar with relevant laws. This knowledge enhances your legal acumen and empowers you to make informed decisions about your defense strategy. The learning experience extends beyond the courtroom as you develop critical research, analytical, and problem-solving skills. This newfound expertise can be applied to various aspects of your life, potentially serving you well. However, it’s essential to approach this learning curve with caution, as mistakes can have significant consequences in criminal cases. Balancing the pursuit of knowledge with the complexities of legal proceedings is key to a successful self-representation journey!

Personalized Approach – A noteworthy advantage of representing yourself is the ability to craft a personalized approach. Unlike relying on an attorney with multiple cases, self-representation allows you to tailor your defense strategy to your circumstances. You have an intimate understanding of your case’s details, and this firsthand knowledge can be invaluable, whether it’s gathering evidence, selecting witnesses, or presenting arguments. As such, you have full control over each aspect, ensuring that your strategy aligns precisely with your needs and priorities. This personalized approach can also lead to a more direct and authentic representation of your case in court. After all, you are the one articulating your story. However, it’s essential to balance this advantage with the responsibility it entails.

You Work Only With Yourself – The final compelling aspect of representing yourself in a criminal case in Minnesota is avoiding potential conflicts of interest. When you choose self-representation, you eliminate the need for a third party with their interests. Thus, you ensure that your case focuses solely on your objectives. That minimizes the possibility of conflicting priorities between you and attorneys, allowing you to maintain control over your legal decisions. Moreover, you won’t have to worry about attorney-client privilege or confidentiality concerns. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that self-representation demands a deep understanding of the legal system. So, while it offers the advantage of avoiding conflicts of interest, it also places the onus on you.

The Pitfalls of Representing Yourself in a Criminal Case

Conversely, here’s a look at some of the potential pitfalls of representing yourself in court.

Legal Complexity – Navigating the legal complexities of a Minnesota criminal case can be daunting for those representing themselves. The intricacies of criminal law can be intricate and ever-changing, making it challenging to grasp the nuances of the legal system. You’ll need to stay current with laws , regulations, and recent court rulings, adding another layer of complexity to your responsibilities. Legal procedures, rules of evidence, and courtroom protocols can also be intricate and perplexing. You may grapple with unfamiliar terminology and procedural hurdles without a legal expert. So, you would need to stress staying current on laws and rulings to ensure your defense remains effective. 

Lack Of Expertise – One notable drawback of representing yourself in a criminal case is the lack of legal expertise. Legal matters can be highly complex. And without a legal professional’s guidance, you may struggle to navigate the intricacies of the legal system effectively. You benefit from their experience and in-depth understanding of criminal law when working with a reliable lawyer . Thus, you ensure your case is approached with expertise and precision. Without this guidance, you may encounter challenges in understanding legal terminology, procedures, and the rules of evidence, compromising your defense. The absence of legal expertise makes it challenging to anticipate and counter the prosecution’s arguments, leaving you at a disadvantage. 

Limited Resources – Limited resources can pose a significant challenge when representing yourself in a Minnesota criminal case. Unlike legal professionals with access to comprehensive legal databases, tools, and resources, your research capabilities might be restricted. This limitation can affect your ability to gather crucial information, such as precedents and case law, essential for building a robust defense. Additionally, without access to expert legal research tools, you may struggle to stay updated on relevant legal developments, potentially hindering your ability to craft an effective strategy. Furthermore, due to resource constraints, self-represented individuals might encounter difficulties securing expert witnesses or obtaining essential evidence. 

Emotional Toll – The emotional toll of representing yourself in a Minnesota criminal case can be substantial. Legal proceedings are inherently stressful, and self-representation intensifies this emotional burden. The responsibility of preparing and presenting your defense, coupled with the uncertainty of the outcome, can lead to anxiety and mental strain. Moreover, the emotional toll can affect decision-making, potentially impacting the quality of your defense strategy. Cross-examination, handling evidence, and facing opposing counsel in court can be emotionally taxing. The fear of severe penalties or incarceration adds further pressure. So, to mitigate this emotional toll, it’s essential to seek emotional support from friends, family, or counselors and to practice self-care throughout the legal process. 

Risk Of Significant Penalties – Representing yourself in a Minnesota criminal case carries the risk of facing harsh penalties. Without the expertise of a qualified attorney, you may inadvertently make mistakes or fail to navigate the legal system effectively. These errors can result in unfavorable outcomes, including more severe punishments. That includes longer prison sentences, hefty fines, or a criminal record that can have lasting consequences. 

While there are pros and cons to self-representation, if the stakes are anything other than a simple fine, it’s likely in your best interest to move forward with a lawyer. For legal help in the great Twin Cities area, reach out to Avery and the team at Appelman Law Firm today at (952) 224-2277.

Author Bio :

Meet Jasper Knox, a legal expert at bestcrosscountrymovers.com . With a passion for the law, Jasper has dedicated his career to advocating for clients’ rights. Beyond the legal realm, Jasper enjoys crafting informative content on cross-country moving, making complex logistics seem simple. His writing showcases his commitment to clarity and helping individuals navigate interstate relocations smoothly.

Contact a Minnesota Defense Lawyer

Minnesota Service Area

Appelman Law Firm represents clients charged with DWI, prostitution, traffic, drug, and other criminal offenses in the following Minnesota counties and cities: St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, Edina, Bloomington, Shakopee, Brooklyn Center, Coon Rapids, Eden Prairie, Eagan, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Hastings, Plymouth, Robbinsdale, Eagan, St. Paul, Hennepin, Anoka, Carver, Blue Earth, Ramsey, Isanti, and McLeod County.

See more  Minnesota Service Areas.

Disclaimer:

The information contained on this site is intended to provide only general education. It should NOT be regarded as specific legal advice to anyone. Individuals should always consult a licensed and qualified lawyer regarding their specific situation.

• Offices in Arlington & Dallas
• Call or Text (817) 841-9906
• Live Call Answering 24/7

• Lawyer Coach
• News & Events
• For Our Clients
• Testimonials

Today, Barry’s is on the cusp of continued global expansion with over 100,000 members working out weekly in studios in over a dozen different countries.

• [email protected]
• 212-695-1962
• Self-Representation in a Criminal Case
• Criminal Defense

Criminal Defense Lawyer

The constitution provides individuals facing criminal charges the right to legal counsel as well as the right to represent themselves if they so choose. So, when faced with criminal charges, it is up to you to decide whether you should hire a lawyer or not and depending on your crime, it might not be necessary. As a general rule of thumb, the harsher your potential punishment could be, the more valuable a lawyer is in helping you reduce your charges.

There are situations where hiring a lawyer might not make much sense. For example, the punishment you are expecting is not severe enough to incur the costs of a lawyer, or you plan on pleading guilty and the sentence you will face cannot be reduced. In some cases, at your arraignment you might be able to handle representing yourself, but this is not usually recommended.

If you have been represented by an attorney who did a poor job for you in the past, this is not the best reason not to hire someone else this time around. Consulting a lawyer who is experienced in handling cases like yours will likely give you an advantage in the long run.

Self-Representation Requires Some Knowledge

While you do not need legal knowledge, you must know the dangers of waiving your right to representation. If you are unable to abide by courtroom rules and procedures, or if the judge deems you as incapable of self-representation, they can appoint a lawyer to you.

Determine Your Sentence

Some state laws outline a range of potential punishments you can anticipate for certain crimes, such as drug possession or trafficking. In many states, the judge might have some leniency on these guidelines or will choose what they think is fair within the range provided by the law.

For a crime that has a wide range of potential charges, such as six months to 10 years in prison and a hefty fine, you might want to find out what the average sentence is in the court you will be attending. To do this, you can hire a defense attorney for an hour or so to see what they think your best options are. You can also speak with someone at the public defender’s office.

Bottom Line

If you are being charged with a minor crime such as shoplifting or a traffic ticket, you might get by without professional representation. On the other hand, if you are being tried for a violent crime or felony, it is often in your best interest to obtain the services of an experienced criminal defense attorney in San Francisco, CA who is familiar with the law and can ensure you are treated fairly in court and given the best outcome possible.

Thanks to the Morales Law Firm for their insight into criminal law and self representation.

Let’s Get Started

First Name*

Email Address*

Phone Number*

How can we help you?

Client Review

“We have had the pleasure of working with the Brandy Austin Law Firm on three occasions with various legal issues. We have always been treated with respect and empathy. We can’t say enough positive about Jennifer Lowe or Trey. Wonderful people to work with. Would very highly recommend.” GARY QUILLIN

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

My Sister’s Family Has a Very Concerning Philosophy About “Self-Defense”

They claim i’m overreacting..

Slate Plus members get more  Care and Feeding  every week. Have a question about kids, parenting, or family life?  Submit it here !

Dear Care and Feeding,

How do you deal with babysitting a kid whose parents teach him that violence isn’t a last resort? I am currently a stay-at-home mom to a 4-year-old who does half-day preschool and a 1-year-old. A few months ago, as a favor to my sister, I started picking up my 6-year-old nephew, “Jason,” from school and watching him until 6:30 p.m., twice a week. I like to take the kids to a playground near my house for part of that time. Twice recently, there have been incidents there with Jason that disturbed me.

Once, another similar-aged boy snatched Jason’s toy away; Jason immediately hit him. Another time, a 2-year-old pushed him on the little balance beam. The boy’s mom immediately intervened, but he did it again five minutes later. The second time, Jason shoved him back HARD. The toddler fell and got pretty scraped up. Both times, I told Jason to stop; I removed him from the situation to talk about other ways to handle this sort of thing: using your words, walking away, getting an adult to help. I said, “We don’t hit unless there’s no other way to keep ourselves safe.” Both times, he told me his parents said he can’t “start something” but he can “finish it.” When I told my sister and her husband, they confirmed this! “My son will never be in trouble with me for defending himself,” and, “If we don’t teach him to stand up for himself, he’ll be a target for bullies.” My brother-in-law even said that I would understand when my baby, who is a boy, is older.

My worry is that Jason is going to keep getting physical with other kids, and I don’t want to get on the shitlist of other parents at my playground. (Not to mention that a paranoid part of me worries about being on the hook legally and financially if Jason seriously hurts another kid while in my care.) But his parents tell him that they’re right and I’m wrong, and they tell me I’m “overreacting.” I feel like my only options are to stop going to the playground with Jason (which means he and my 4-year-old daughter are bouncing off the walls for hours in our small row home) or to tell my sister that I can’t watch Jason anymore (which will cause bad blood between us, as well as financial problems for their family). Are there other ways to handle this that I’m not seeing?

—Let’s Not Hit

Dear Let’s Not,

I think the “bad blood” has already started to run. You and your sister have clashing rules for your children’s behavior—distinctly different worldviews, in fact. This is not a sustainable arrangement for child care. If you were a paid sitter and had no children of your own whom you were caring for alongside Jason, who would be influenced by behavior you found abhorrent, you’d have a decision to make: abide by his parents’ rules for his behavior, swallowing your convictions, or quit that job. Under the circumstances (you’re not a paid sitter, you do have your own kids to think about), I don’t think you have a choice. You cannot effectively take care of a child who has been told that he doesn’t have to do as you say. (And I’m sure you realize that eventually one of your kids is going to do something that irks their cousin and he’s going to hit them, and this child who has been taught that hitting is an acceptable response to an affront will laugh at their attempts to de-escalate, defend themselves with words, or ask you to intervene.) You should absolutely not stop going to the playground! That’s a short-term solution to a bigger problem, anyway. Tell your sister you’re sorry, but this is a hill you’re willing to die on: You disagree profoundly with her and her husband’s thinking, and you’ll have to withdraw your offer to watch her son. Her financial situation is not your responsibility. And if your (regretful, I-so-wish-we-could-see-eye-to-eye-on-this-important-matter) rescinding of your offer to babysit causes a deep rift between you two, then the relationship was on shaky grounds already.

More Advice From Slate

My daughter is a junior in high school, and we have been gradually ramping up the college discussion with her over the past year or so. We have been able to save up a s**t ton of money (and so have her grandparents) so that financial aid will not be a big factor in her deciding where to go. The problem is that she has her heart set on the university that her father and I both attended—a university that no longer considers legacy status.

Woman arrested in fatal Fort Myers stabbing claims self-defense, asks court to dismiss case

About 30 people had gathered for a dispute when the deadly stabbing happened..

One of two women charged in a fatal Fort Myers stabbing is asking the court to dismiss her case, citing "statutory immunity."

A'lexis Lafay Jewett, 24, was arrested April 2, 2023, on second-degree murder charges. She was released May 1, 2023, on $100,000 bond.

About 8:45 p.m. March 31, 2023, officers responded to the 5300 block of Summerlin Road, where a woman lay on the ground. Court documents have identified the victim as Jyrah Woolfork, who would've graduated from Mariner High School that year.

Manslaughter arrest: Brother wanted for questioning in Cape Coral brother's death arrested

According to the motion to dismiss filed Thursday by Jewett's public defender, Kathleen Smith, Jewett had an earlier confrontation with another individual at a liquor store leading to the stabbing.

Jewett and her mother, according to the motion, arrived at the apartment complex about two hours prior to the stabbing, but the person Jewett attempted to confront wasn't present.

Woolfork was among a group of about 30 that later arrived in support of the woman Jewett argued with, court documents say.

"Both groups were armed with various weapons, including but not limited to, a crowbar, a steering wheel 'club,' a knife, a hammer, and pepper spray," the motion reads in part.

Court documents say that during the melee Jewett was in fear for her life, as well as her mother's, and defended herself with a knife.

During the scuffle, Woolfork was stabbed in the chest, the motion says. Another woman, identified as Tiara Walker, was stabbed in the shoulder.

A large crowd gathered as Woolfork "was going in and out of consciousness," the report said. Several rendered aid before first responders took Woolfork to Gulf Coast Medical Center, where she died.

A witness told investigators Jewett and her family attacked Woolfork, according to the report.

Thursday's motion claims Jewett defended herself and her mother.

Jewett's accused accomplice, Kathy Adderson, 53, of Fort Myers, was arrested Dec. 4, 2023, on charges of second-degree murder and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon in the incident. She was released March 18 on $150,000 bond.

Both are next due in court June 5 for a pretrial conference before Lee Circuit Judge Bruce Kyle.

Tomas Rodriguez is a Breaking/Live News Reporter for the Naples Daily News and The News-Press. You can reach Tomas at [email protected] or 772-333-5501. Connect with him on Threads  @tomasfrobeltran , Instagram  @tomasfrobeltran  and Facebook  @tomasrodrigueznews .

Leon County Sheriff's Office says Ox Bow shooting was 'domestic in nature,' 'self defense'

Almost a week after a man died in a shooting on Ox Bow Road in northeast Tallahassee, the Leon County Sheriff's Office turned the case over to the State Attorney's Office after a preliminary investigation found the shooting was in self defense.

LCSO Spokesperson Shonda Knight said as of now there have been no charges filed, but the shooting that involved two men was "domestic in nature."

It's unclear if charges will be brought, Knight said, and calls with State Attorney Jack Campbell has not been returned. LCSO has also not identified the identity of who was killed. Records of the incident are also unavailable as the case remains open and active.

Deputies were called to the scene Friday around 7:30 p.m. after a man was found dead in the 7000 block of Ox Bow Road.

“The people involved were familiar with each other,” LCSO Captain Jimmy Goodman told the Tallahassee Democrat at the time.

So far this year, 11 people have died and at least 20 people have been injured in 28 shootings in the capital city and county, according to a  Tallahassee Democrat analysis of gun violence.

Breaking & trending news reporter Elena Barrera can be reached at  [email protected] . Follow her on X:  @elenabarreraaa .

Criminal Justice

This Elderly Man Was Arrested After Shooting a Burglar in Self-Defense—for Carrying the Gun Without a License

Vincent yakaitis is unfortunately not the first such defendant. he will also not be the last..

Billy Binion | 5.1.2024 4:37 PM

Dennis Powanda and Vincent Yakaitis are bound together by a common experience: They were both criminally charged in connection with an attempted burglary. Powanda was the burglar, and Yakaitis was the property owner.

Ah, justice.

Indeed, that's not a misprint, parody, or a bad joke (although I wish it were the latter). Powanda was arrested and charged with criminal trespass and burglary, along with other related offenses, for executing the botched raid a little before 2:00 a.m. in February 2023 at Yakaitis' property in Port Carbon, Pennsylvania. The government charged Yakaitis, who is in his mid-70s, with using a firearm without a license after he shot Powanda, despite that it appears prosecutors agree Yakaitis justifiably used that same firearm in self-defense.

Whatever your vantage point—whether you care about criminal justice reform and a fair legal system, or gun rights, or all of the above—it is difficult to make sense of arresting and potentially imprisoning someone over what essentially amounts to a paperwork violation. That injustice is even more glaring when considering that Powanda, 40, allegedly charged at Yakaitis, who happens to be about three and a half decades older than Powanda.

Pennsylvania's permitting regime does carve out a couple of exceptions, one of which would seem to highly favor Yakaitis. Someone does not need a license to carry, according to the law , "in his place of abode or fixed place of business." Yakaitis owned the home Powanda attempted to burglarize. The catch: He didn't live there—it reportedly had no tenants at the time of the crime—opening a window for law enforcement to charge him essentially on a technicality.

If convicted, Yakaitis faces up to five years in prison and a $25,000 fine. Quite the price to pay for protecting your life on your own property. The misdemeanor charge also implies that Yakaitis has no history of using his weapon inappropriately, or any criminal record at all, as Pennsylvania law classifies his particular crime—carrying a firearm without a license—as a felony if the defendant has prior criminal convictions and would be disqualified from obtaining such a license. In other words, we can deduce that Yakaitis was a law-abiding citizen and eligible for a permit, which means he is staring down five years in a cell for not turning in a form and paying a fee to local law enforcement. OK.

Yakaitis is not the first such case. In June, law enforcement in New York charged Charles Foehner with so many gun possession crimes that if convicted on all of them he would face life in prison . Police came to be aware of his unlicensed firearms when Foehner defended himself against an attempted mugger—the surveillance footage is here —after which they searched Foehner's home and found that only some of his weapons were licensed with the state.

Prosecutors classified it as a justified shooting. And then they hit Foehner with an avalanche of criminal charges that would have resulted in a longer prison sentence than his assailant would have received, had he survived.

There's also LaShawn Craig, another New York City man whose case I covered in December. He, too, shot someone in self-defense and he, too, was arrested for doing so without a license. Like Foehner, he was charged with criminal possession of a weapon, a violent felony in New York. For a paperwork violation.

New York is a particularly relevant case study on the subject, as its highly restrictive concealed carry framework was the subject of a landmark Supreme Court case— New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen —which the majority disemboweled. It wasn't just conservative gun rights advocates who wanted that ruling, although you'd be forgiven for thinking so based on how polarized this debate tends to be. That Supreme Court decision also attracted support from progressive public defenders with The Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, The Bronx Defenders, and Brooklyn Defender Services. As I wrote in June about the amicus brief they submitted to the Court:

[The public defenders] offered several case studies centered around people whose lives were similarly upended. Among them were Benjamin Prosser and Sam Little, who had both been victims of violent crimes and who are now considered "violent felons" in the eyes of the state simply for carrying a firearm without the mandated government approval. Little, a single father who had previously been slashed in the face, was separated from his family while he served his sentence at the Vernon C. Bain Center, a notorious jail that floats on the East River. The conviction destroyed his nascent career, with the Department of Education rescinding its offer of employment.

In many jurisdictions, including New York, it can be expensive and time-consuming to get the required license, which in turn makes the Second Amendment available only to people of a certain class.

So where do we go from here? Those skeptical of rolling back concealed carry restrictions may take comfort in the fact that this doesn't have to be black and white. Governments, for example, can "give eligible persons a 30-day grace period to seek and obtain a permit after being charged, then automatically drop charges and expunge record once obtained," offers Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, or "remove the criminal penalty entirely" and perhaps "make it a fineable infraction," like driving without a license.

Whatever the case, it should be—it is —possible to balance public safety with the right to bear arms, and, as an extension, the right to self-defense. To argue otherwise is to embolden a legal system that incentivizes elderly men like Yakaitis to sit down and take it when someone threatens their life.

Not Even Artificial Intelligence Can Make Central Planning Work

Arnold Kling | From the June 2024 issue

The Case of the AI-Generated Giant Rat Penis

Ronald Bailey | From the June 2024 issue

AI Regulators Are More Likely To Run Amok Than Is AI

Ronald Bailey | 5.3.2024 4:45 PM

Trump Promises To Give Police 'Immunity From Prosecution'

Billy Binion | 5.3.2024 4:15 PM

The New York Case Against Trump Relies on a 'Twisty' Legal Theory That Reeks of Desperation

Jacob Sullum | 5.3.2024 4:10 PM

Homeowner claims self-defense after shooting and killing attacker in his driveway, HPD says

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- A homeowner is claiming self-defense after police say he shot and killed a man who allegedly attacked him in his driveway on Tuesday.

The Houston Police Department told ABC13 that officers received a call about the shooting at 8:36 p.m. on the city's southeast side.

The department posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the shooting happened on Greendowns Street.

Investigators said the 45-year-old was arriving at his home with his family and got out of his car to move their trash can blocking the driveway.

As his wife was parking the vehicle, the homeowner was approached by a 29-year-old man described to be angry and behaving aggressively, according to HPD.

The two men began physically fighting, the homeowner shot the suspect, and he called the police.

"Apparently they both live on this street. We're trying to figure that out. The homeowner said the male attacked him in his driveway (and) he shot him in self-defense," HPD Lt. Larry Crowson said.

Houston Fire Department paramedics responded to the scene and drove the 29-year-old man to Ben Taub General Hospital, where he died.

The case will be presented to a Harris County grand jury.

If you know anything about this case, authorities urge you to contact the Houston Police Department's Homicide Division at (713) 308-3600.

Related Topics

• FATAL SHOOTING
• MAN ATTACKED
• DEATH INVESTIGATION

7th person dies in crash that killed 3 former UH football players

Deputies return fire, kill man accused of shooting at them, HCSO says

HCSO deputy shoots man after being flagged down to scene, sheriff says

Man leaving for work shot and killed by suspect with AK-47, HCSO says

Top stories.

ABC13 Weather Alert Day declared for storms, heavy rain on Sunday

Evacuee forced to leave dog behind is among flood emergency faces

Conroe PD lieutenant dies days after injuries from storm, police say

Celebrate Cinco de Mayo with ABC13 at the big parade downtown Saturday

• 2 hours ago

E. Fork of San Jacinto River peaks Friday night, W. Fork on Saturday

Some told to brace for more flooding after 'Harvey-level rainfall'

Storms pass, but high water still holding up SE Texas highways

• 3 hours ago

Boil water notice issued for Lake Livingston - area subdivisions

14 Of The Best Firearms For Self Defense

Posted: May 3, 2024 | Last updated: May 3, 2024

Choosing a firearm for self-defense is a personal decision that depends on various factors, including your comfort level, proficiency, local laws, and the specific context of use. It’s crucial to receive proper training and follow all relevant safety guidelines.

Here’s a list of popular handguns often considered for self-defense, but keep in mind that individual preferences may vary:

The Glock 19 is a reliable and widely popular 9mm handgun known for its simplicity, durability, and ease of use. Its compact size makes it suitable for both concealed carry and home defense, while its reputation for minimal maintenance and consistent performance appeals to a broad range of users.

Smith & Wesson M&P Shield

The Smith & Wesson M&P Shield is a compact and lightweight semi-automatic pistol designed for concealed carry. Featuring a slim profile and chambered in various calibers, the M&P Shield is praised for its manageable recoil, solid construction, and user-friendly design, making it a favored choice for personal defense.

Sig Sauer P320

The Sig Sauer P320 stands out for its modular design, allowing users to easily customize grip size and caliber. Adopted by the U.S. military as the M17, the P320 offers a smooth trigger, excellent ergonomics, and a reputation for accuracy, making it a versatile choice for both self-defense and competitive shooting.

Springfield Armory XD-S

The Springfield Armory XD-S is a compact, single-stack pistol designed for concealed carry. Its slim profile, available in various calibers, and aggressive grip texture contribute to its popularity among those seeking a balance between concealability and firepower.

Ruger LCP II

The Ruger LCP II is a lightweight and ultra-compact pistol designed specifically for concealed carry, featuring a pocket-sized design and chambered in .380 ACP. Known for its affordability and simplicity, the LCP II is an excellent choice for individuals prioritizing discretion and ease of carry.

The CZ P-10 C is a polymer-framed, striker-fired handgun known for its exceptional ergonomics and smooth trigger. With a reputation for accuracy and a modular design that allows for interchangeable backstraps, the P-10 C appeals to those seeking a comfortable and customizable self-defense option.

Walther PPQ

The Walther PPQ is recognized for its superior trigger quality, featuring a short reset and crisp break. Combining accuracy with ergonomic design, the PPQ is favored by users who appreciate a well-balanced handgun suitable for self-defense and competition shooting.

Beretta 92FS/M9

The Beretta 92FS, also known as the M9 in military service, is a classic full-sized handgun known for its reliability and accuracy. Featuring a double-action/single-action trigger and a capacity of 15 rounds, the 92FS is a robust and time-tested choice for self-defense.

S&W J-Frame Revolvers

Smith & Wesson’s J-Frame revolvers, available in various calibers, are lightweight and easily concealable firearms. Known for their simplicity and reliability, these revolvers offer a classic design and are popular among those seeking a compact yet powerful self-defense option.

FN FNS-9 Compact

The FN FNS-9 Compact is a versatile handgun known for its balance between size and capacity. With a reputation for accuracy and a durable construction, the FNS-9 Compact is a reliable choice for individuals looking for a mid-sized firearm suitable for both concealed carry and home defense.

The Colt 1911 is an iconic semi-automatic pistol celebrated for its stopping power and timeless design. Available in various calibers, the 1911 has a single-action trigger and is favored by those who appreciate a classic firearm for self-defense and competitive shooting.

The Kahr CW9 is a slim and lightweight pistol designed for concealed carry. Known for its simplicity and striker-fired action, the CW9 offers an affordable option for those seeking a reliable and easily concealable firearm for self-defense.

Canik TP9 series

The Canik TP9 series includes a range of striker-fired pistols known for their affordability and quality. With features like a smooth trigger and adjustable backstraps, the TP9 series provides users with a reliable and budget-friendly option for self-defense.

Springfield Armory 1911 EMP

The Springfield Armory 1911 EMP (Enhanced Micro Pistol) is a compact 1911 design ideal for concealed carry. Known for its shorter barrel and grip, the EMP offers a balance between the classic 1911 platform and modern carry preferences, making it a popular choice for self-defense.

Selecting a firearm for self-defense is a highly individualized process that involves careful consideration of factors such as personal preferences, comfort, and local regulations. The list highlights popular choices known for their reliability, accuracy, and suitability for concealed carry.

However, it is essential to emphasize that proper training, adherence to safety protocols, and awareness of legal requirements are paramount in responsibly owning and using any self-defense firearm.

What To Read Next

• This Genius Trick Every Online Shopper Should Know
• Best High-Yield Savings Accounts This Month
• Best Gold IRA This Year
• Deals On Popular Cruises
• The Best Internet Deals For Seniors
• Affordable Life Insurance Options for Seniors

For the Latest Breaking Crime & Justice News, Headlines & Videos, head to Body Cams+

More for You

Donald Trump Lawyer May Have Committed 'Serious Ethical Violation'—Attorney

My husband wants me to sign over 20% of my home. If not, he threatens to take half in a divorce. What should I do?

My homeowners insurance dropped me after I filed 2 claims in 5 years, and it taught me 3 lessons I wish I'd learned sooner

You could get in big trouble for throwing these items in trash

Joe Biden has no authority to suspend 2024 election

I became a millionaire at age 27—here are 4 'unpopular' rules rich people follow that most don't

7 Things Stroke Doctors Say You Should Never, Ever Do

Here is the true value of having a fully paid-off home in America — especially when you're heading into retirement

I was fired from a new job in less than a week after I started. It taught me not every opportunity is a good opportunity.

‘Young Sheldon' Stars Montana Jordan & Emily Osment, CBS Boss Tease "Emotional" Final Episodes, Series' Sendoff To Include Pilot Encore

Leaving These 13 Things by the Front Door Could Keep You Safe

17 Phrases Older People Use That No One Else Gets

Why do I wake up at 3 a.m. every night?

Try Martha Stewart’s Genius Hack to Get a Stuck Lid off a Jar Without Hurting Your Hands

State Farm announces major insurance policy change affecting tens of thousands of households: 'This decision was not made lightly'

3 of the best movies of all time, all of which earned a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes

Suze Orman: 5 Social Security Facts Every Soon-To-Be Retiree Must Know

A woman said her tattoos got her rejected for a job, but experts say personality is far more important

The Fastest Horses to Ever Race the Kentucky Derby

‘A big cost to be paid’: More Americans over 55 are choosing to ‘live apart together’ — what are you willing to pay to ‘save’ your relationship?