Sunny Hostin (an former prosecutor turned “commentator”) once again writes some “commentary” on CNN that, well, is stupid. This time she complains about “pro se” defendants. She begins by talking about criminal proceedings governed by the sixth amendment, but ends by diverging into British family law disputes.
Now, granted, we all think it is a bad idea for someone to represent themselves at trial. But, her “commentary” seems woefully under-researched.
Her “prime” example of a pro se defendant is “Hollywood private eye Anthony Pellicano.” Strangely, in his case, the jury is “sill out.” She claims that because he wasn’t a seasoned lawyer he didn’t address all the evidence the prosecution mustered. The problem with this argument is that “seasoned” lawyers often will choose not to address some of the evidence the prosecution mustered. It is a tactical decision. Because she is talking to the lower classes she does not explain what evidence was mustered at trial.
By the end of the article, her broad glosses are just plain silly. She starts listing people that represented themselves, and why it was a bad idea.
Heather Mills: In this lawyer's opinion, she could have gotten more money from Paul McCartney with a lawyer.
Wait a minute. Ms. Mills was not a criminal defendant. Ms. Mills was not even anywhere in the United States. Moreover, because Ms. Hoston doesn’t provide any analysis of how Ms. Mills could have done better, it seems that Ms. Hoston is making it up. So, there is no reason that Ms. Hoston should be trusted.
John Allen Muhammad, the convicted "D.C. sniper": This week, he's writing to prosecutors from death row, asking their help in ending his appeals.
Okay, this guy was a little nuts. However, he only “represented himself” during opening statements (perhaps as a bid to avoid being cross-examined). He was represented by lawyers throughout the rest of his trial.
Dr. Jack Kevorkian: He was convicted in 1999 of second-degree murder in the death of a patient.
Kevorkian was a little nuts. Or at least a bit of an attention whore. But, who could blame him? His prior trials (with lawyers) ended in mistrials. So, who could really blame him?
Colin Ferguson: He managed to alienate everyone in the courtroom before being convicted of the 1993 shootings on a New York commuter train that killed six people.
Nuts. But would have have really done better? Is that what Hostin is trying to say?
Ted Bundy: He was convicted of killing sorority sisters in Florida and put to death. People brought frying pans to the prison on the day he was executed.
What does the “frying pans” have to do his self-representation at trial? Do all prosecutors think it is cute to “fry” someone. Why does it matter that the victims were “sorority sisters.” Bundy, on the other hand was a law student. Is Hoston really arguing that if he was represented by a lawyer he would have been acquitted and nobody would have brought frying pans to the prison?
Then she concludes with:
In fact, I can't think of a defendant who represented himself or herself as well, or better, than a lawyer. So maybe I'm biased, but lawyers are trained professionals.
First of all, let me provide a link to a story about a pro se defendant getting an acquittal in a murder trial.
Secondly, I agree people that represent themselves are making stupid decisions. But it doesn’t mean that they are necessary going to better at trial. Perhaps if Ms. Hostin could provide real specifics (instead of talking down to people) we might have a real conversation here.
Comments