On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:00:18 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>
>"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote
>
>> Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>>>Tony23 wrote:
>>>>I know someone who was told by the Judge that she COULD NOT represent
>>>>herself and she MUST retain an attorney to appear in court...
>>>
>>>Well, that's just crap. *Anyone* can appear pro se. I cannot imagine a
>>>state that doesn't allow one to represent him/herself. I'd have asked
>>>that judge to show me song and verse in the Code of Civil Procedure
>>>where it says that. "You're Honor, with all due respect (which, of
>>>course, always has a subtitle of "you flaming *ss"),
>>
>> It's that "due" that turns it from "with all respect" to
>> "with no respect because you are due none".
>
>I thought the general idea was to avoid grounds for overturning the
>result of the trial. The fact that the person wasn't represented could
>easily result in a do over. The Colin Ferguson (sp) case comes to mind,
>he represented himself but the court insisted he have 'co-counsil' ...
>lot of good that did. And ... he did appeal the conviction because he
>had incompetent counsel.
>
>nancy
>

the only reason i can think of that *pro se* would be forbidden is a
'competency' question, i don't know if there's a line between
'incapable of aiding in his defense' and 'incapable of representing
himself.' it's a bad idea, in any case. 'fool for a client' and all
that. you will notice that most attorneys do not represent
themselves.

on the other hand, at least if you represent yourself, your attorney
is not likely to fall asleep during the trial, as sometimes happens in
texas.

your pal,
blake



your pal,
blake