| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Edwards steals a pair of shoes from a department store and gets in a shootout on his way out, wounding a bystander. He's got some pretty serious mental issues, and wants to represent himself. |
| Posture: | Incompetent to stand trial; then he gets competent. Denied the right to represent himself; convicted at trial. Ct. App. orders a new trial. Affirmed by IN SC. |
| Issue: | Is the right to self-representation absolute? |
| Holding: | No. Vacated and remanded. |
| Rule: | A judge can take a realistic appraisal of a defendant's mental capacity when deciding whether to allow a defendant to self-represent. |
| Reasoning: | There's a difference between being competent enough to stand trial and being competent to represent yourself. |
| Dicta: | Scalia, dissenting: no, this is a personal right. The state's view of what's fair isn't the end-all here. By the way, we're trying to mainstream people with mental troubles, and here we're denying them a basic right. |