Analysis | Several Jan. 6 Capitol rioters opt for self-representation in court

Despite legal experts advising against it, some of the defendants who stormed the U.S. Capitol are foregoing legal representation. WikiCommons 

At least five of the Jan. 6 Capitol rioters are choosing to represent themselves in court, despite not having received any legal training. Judges warned the defendants foregoing legal counsel could doom their case.

Capitol riot defendant Brandon Fellows is a prime example: after opting to represent himself at his bond hearing earlier this month, he may have admitted to two new felonies in the process, a federal judge stated. 

“I would never represent myself if I were charged with a crime,” said U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth to defendant Alan Hostetter — an ex-police chief arrested in June for participating in the riots. 

Nevertheless, Lamberth granted Hostetter’s request to be his own legal counsel; the right to self-representation is one guaranteed to the accused in most criminal prosecutions under the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment.

However, the majority of defendants who choose to represent themselves end up losing their cases. 

“An individual who is unskilled in law and the strategies and tactics of jury trials may make serious blunders that will impair the defense,” said Lawrence Rosenthal, a professor of law at Chapman University.

The 1975 case Faretta V. California set precedent for the defendants’ right to represent themselves in court. Anthony Faretta asked to be his own legal counsel in court after he was charged with grand theft. The court initially gave permission but later assigned Faretta a public defender after deeming Faretta’s familiarity with legal terminology inadequate. 

Upon being convicted, Faretta appealed the case, stating he had a right to defend himself. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court — which sided with Faretta — ruling defendants have a constitutional right to defend themselves. 

Any defendant that goes this route must be evaluated by a judge to be “competent” enough to provide their own legal counsel. 

One main reason an individual may choose to represent themselves in court is due to mistrust of the criminal justice system, according to Rosenthal.

“Some individuals are skeptical of the quality of appointed attorneys and reluctant to trust their defense to an individual they do not know,” Rosenthal said.

More rarely, a defendant may feel there is a tactical advantage to representing themselves, Rosenthal added. 

“(Self representation) gives the defendant an opportunity to talk to and ultimately develop some rapport with the jury without having to testify and be subject to cross-examination,” Rosenthal said.

Civil rights activist Edward Lawson successfully represented himself in an appeal against a conviction in California after refusing  to present identification to a police officer. The California Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling the California statute authorizing a police officer to arrest a person for refusing to present identification was unconstitutionally vague. 

Contrastly, serial killer Charles Manson infamously chose to represent himself during his 1969 trial for the murder of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and six others, but he was unsuccessful in his defense and was given a life sentence. 

Taylor Bains, a first year student at Roger Williams University School of Law, told The Panther she would advise against representing oneself in court, because without the legal training, an individual wouldn’t know specific things that could hurt or help their case in court. 

“There’s so many niche things in law within both criminal and civil procedure that could really hurt you or help you,” Bains said.