The following excerpt is from United States ex rel. Martinez v. Thomas, 526 F.2d 750 (2nd Cir. 1975):
We cannot escape the conclusion on this record that appellant was given
[526 F.2d 756]
no freedom of choice to decide whether he wished to defend himself. His choice, if choice it can be called, was based entirely on his bowing to the inevitable, by the agreement to a trial date by an institutional defense team whose lack of liaison was prejudicial to his interests, and by his distrust of the lawyer assigned. We cannot find that in the light of his borderline competence and the failure to warn him of the pitfalls of a pro se defense, the high standards of proof for the waiver of constitutional rights have been met. Johnson v. Zerbst, supra.[526 F.2d 756]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.