Pulling a Fast One with Right to Counsel?
PEOPLE V. MICHAEL HENRIQUEZ , 3 N.Y.3d 210, 818 N.E.2d 1125, 785 N.Y.S.2d 384.
Decided October 19, 2004
In March 1994, Michael Henriquez approached a police car and informed the officer that he had just killed his girlfriend. The police officers found the girlfriend, shot numerous times in the head, at the defendant’s home. Henriquez confessed to killing his girlfriend in the presence of their infant child and provided detailed written and videotaped statements. The defendant, Henriquez, was charged with intentional murder in the second degree, illegal weapon possession, and endangering the welfare of a child.
The defendant was unable to afford an attorney and so was given one by the court. His assigned counsel informed the trial judge that the defendant had instructed him to do nothing during the trial in his defense. Defense counsel therefore asked to be relieved of his assignment and asked that the defendant represent himself (proceed pro se). In considering the attorney’s request, the court heard from the defendant who confirmed that he would not permit his attorney to participate in his defense but refused to proceed pro se. The trial court denied the attorney’s request to be relieved and ordered him to be present and available at trial in case Henriquez changed his mind.
Before and during the trial, Henriquez confirmed his refusal to present a defense, either through his lawyer or on his own. Throughout the trial, the trial judge discussed with the defendant his understanding as to the important rights that he was giving up. Henriquez confirmed that he understood he was giving up his right to make an opening statement, cross-examine witnesses, testify on his own behalf, call witnesses, present a defense, and object to impermissible questioning by the prosecutor. The defendant continued to refuse to allow his counsel to participate in the proceeding and refused to represent himself. Defense counsel followed the wishes of his client and did not participate in the proceeding. Henriquez was found guilty of intentional murder in the second degree and other crimes.
Henriquez appealed his conviction, asserting that his constitutional right to a fair trial was violated because the trail court and defense counsel allowed him to refrain from presenting a defense. He claimed that he never waived his right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The New York State Court of Appeals ruled in a 6-1 decision that the defendant in this case was not denied a fair trial nor deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The essential elements of a fair trial are defined the in Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial by an impartial jury…and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence (sic).”
The Sixth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that a defendant may not be forced to stand trail without counsel. At the same time, counsel may not be forced upon a defendant. Individuals have control over their own defense. But, a defendant does not have the right to counsel and the right to self-representation at the same time. A defendant must choose. The Court found that Henriquez was attempting to abuse the process: He did not allow defense counsel to participate in the proceeding, did not allow defense counsel to be relieved, and refused to proceed pro se. The Court held that in these circumstances, even though the attorney was not dismissed, the defendant has voluntarily waived the right to counsel.
Learning Activities
· assigned counsel
· defendant
· pro se
In Gideon v. Wainwright (83 S.Ct. 792 (1963)) the United States Supreme Court decided that the Sixth Amendment required that Clarence Gideon be provided an attorney, reasoning as follows:
“The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even thought he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel every step in the proceeding against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.”
How does the quote from the Supreme Court apply to Michael Henriquez?