In landmark cases, the Supreme Court set standards for pro se cases, which include boundaries for not only those individuals who choose to represent themselves, but also for the standby counsel in these particular cases.

• In Faretta v. California (1975), the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant, Anthony Faretta, had the constitutional right to refuse legal counsel and to represent himself in a state criminal trial. This case set the standards for pro se cases following it by upholding the constitutional right of an individual to represent him or herself in court. However, the Court also ruled that a defendant who voluntarily self-represents him or herself in court may not argue after the proceedings that they received ineffective counsel.
• In Mckaskle v. Wiggins (1984), the Supreme Court considered what the role of ‘standby counsel’ should be in pro se criminal cases. According to the Court, Wiggins’s sixth amendment right had not been violated by the presence of a standby counsel at his criminal trial, as he was still able to defend himself in any way he saw fit. This case established limits on the role of the standby counsel in pro se trials by refining standards that were set by Faretta.
• In Martinez v. Court of Appeal in California (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that an appellant who was the defendant of a state criminal case does not have the right to refuse the counsel of an attorney in a court of appeals; this ruling contrasts with the decision in the Faretta v. California case. The opinion of the Court was that the sixth amendment only extended to the defendant’s right to self-representation in criminal and civil cases, and that there is no such right in a court of appeals.

The post Pro Se: Representing Yourself in Court appeared first on Crime Museum.

In the late night of February 1970, investigators were met with a bloody crime scene. There was an overturned coffee table in the living room while other furniture appeared undisturbed. Walking through the hallway and into the master bedroom, they saw a woman covered in blood lying atop a “white rug”. Kimberly and Kristen Macdonald were found in the rooms apparently belonging to the children.

Controversy arises from these brutal murders because of contradicting testimonies from witnesses, characters ranging from long-time drug abusers to retired US Marshals. And on top of these opposing statements, followers insisting on MacDonald’s innocence say that the prosecution suppressed evidence casting doubt on him being suspect.

One witness that came forward in the beginning was Helena Swoekley, who was being counseled by MacDonald for her long-time drug abuse. She spoke with investigators confessing to being part of the murders. She changed her statement when she was put on stand claiming she does not remember what she did the night of the murder.

Another topic of controversy was the fact that Jeffrey MacDonald survived the crime with one stab wound, described by the investigators as minimal damage that did not threaten his life. But in medical reports, doctors describe multiple stab wounds and abrasions to his body along with multiple contusions to his head.

Defense attorney Bernard Segel claimed that he was never given detailed information regarding wool fibers found in all of the victim’s hands. These materials were considered ‘foreign’ because it did not match any of the fibers found within the homes. Furthermore, the hair fibers found in Colette’s hands were of blonder color and supposedly from a wig. According to Swoekley’s statement, she said she was wearing a blonde wig at the time of the murders.

The prosecution does not believe MacDonald’s account of the night and claims that the physical evidence proves a staging occurred. Much blood, type O, (confirmed by blood type because DNA was not an advanced tool used in court as it is now) was found in all bedrooms where the victims were found. All the members of the family had different blood type, so finding blood type O in all bedrooms implicated Jeffrey MacDonald. The prosecution also entered into the trial interview tapes of MacDonald after the murders. His indifferent responses to the killings characterized him as cold, unremorseful, and guilty. In the CID (Criminal Investigation Department) reports on  the evidence, investigators claims that bloodstains of Colette MacDonald were found on Jeffrey MacDonald’s pajama shirt before the shirt was torn which only narrowed their focus on Jeffrey MacDonald as their prime suspect.

In the interview transcripts, MacDonald asked why he would murder his family when he was perfectly happy with his life. In response to his demanding inquiries, they reminded him of his extramarital affairs. Prosecutors found that this would be the primary reason to the heinous murders of the family.

Helena Swoekley claimed to have been witness to the murder of the MacDonald family. Retired US Marshall Jimmy Britt said in a sworn statement that he overheard Jim Blackburn threaten Swoekley to not share her statement on the stand or she would be indicted for murder. Swoekley’s mother, also named Helena, came forward sharing that her daughter confided in her two separate events that she was present during the MacDonald family murder. Swoekley claimed that she was present in his house that night to intimidate MacDonald because, as a counsel, he was being “too hard” on drug users.

Although much of the evidence is primarily circumstantial, the opposing opinions on whether Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent or guilty keep increasing.

Jeffrey MacDonald was granted an appeal after compelling witness statements made by Retired US Marshall Jimmy Britt (now deceased), human DNA found in fingernail scrapings from one of the victims not belonging to anyone from the MacDonald family, and foreign wool fibers.

Because Jim Britt and Helena Swoekley are both deceased, prosecutors see it “improper” to admit it as evidence for a new trial.

The post Jeffrey MacDonald appeared first on Crime Museum.