Jim Dey: Ignorance of court procedure forgivable for defendant, not judge
Apr. 14—When Will County criminal defendant Jermaine Brooks first appeared in court, he accepted the trial judge's appointment of a public defender to represent him.
But Brooks became disenchanted with the public defender's representation and announced, "I don't want you as my public defender anymore."
The attorney told Circuit Judge Vincent Cornelius that Brooks wanted to act as his own lawyer, and Brown confirmed that was his intent in open court.
Before agreeing to let Brooks act as his own lawyer, the judge "implored (Brooks) not to dismiss his public defender" and act as his own lawyer. Brooks ignored the advice.
After being convicted of the meth crime and sentenced to prison, Brooks' appellate lawyers argued that their client's conviction should be overturned because their client didn't have a lawyer.
Brooks' conviction was reversed because, the appellate court ruled, he represented himself "at critical stages of the proceedings without a valid waiver of counsel."
The Brooks decision is another reason why, when trial judges hear a defendant say he wants to act as his own lawyer, they should proceed with caution.
Why? The problem wasn't what Cornelius did when Broooks told him he wanted to act as his own lawyer; it's what he didn't do.
Cornelius failed to go down the laundry list of warnings to the defendant that are required before the defendant is considered to have made a knowing waiver of his right to have a court-appointed lawyer.
Illinois law sets out a clear list of warnings a trial judge is required to give any defendant who is so foolish as to wish to act as his own attorney.
Such warnings include the nature of the charge, the maximum and minimum penalties if convicted and his right to counsel, including court-appointed counsel if the defendant can't afford to hire a lawyer.
The only time the judge gave those warnings was when Brooks made his initial court appearance, "nearly three years before (Brooks) made any indication he wanted to go ."
"The failure to provide the mandatory admonishments at the time the court learned defendant wished to proceed , recent defendant's waives of counsel ineffective," the appellate court said.
After several months of acting as his own lawyer, Brooks eventually changed his mind and took back a public defendant. But by that time, there had been intervening court hearings that were so "critical," they nullified his subsequent conviction.
What's the big deal?
The courts have ruled that a defendant's right to counsel in all criminal cases and at all stages of those cases is "fundamental."
That right includes the right to represent oneself, but "a waiver of counsel and choice to represent oneself must be knowing, intelligent and voluntary."
Hence, the court is required to go down the laundry list of cautionary warnings about what's at stake.
That didn't happen.
The court ordered Brooks not only receive a new trial but that it must proceed "unaffected by uncounseled choices he made" during the first case.
