A Look At Prisoner Self-Representation
| DOI | 10.1177/003288556804800104 |
| Author | Richard M. Cherry |
| Published date | 01 April 1968 |
| Date | 01 April 1968 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
28
A
LOOK
AT
PRISONER
SELF-REPRESENTATION
RICHARD
M.
CHERRY
*
*
Staff
Law
Clerk,
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Third
Circuit.
JUDICIAL
SYSTEMS
ARE
SET
UP
TO
FUNCTION
SMOOTHLY
WHEN
trained
attorneys
as
adversaries
guide
their
cases
through
appropriate
channels.
Yet,
in
the
Federal
courts,
in
the
area
of
prisoner
litigation,
.
this
is
usually
not
the
case.
In
habeas
corpus,
and
other
post
conviction
proceedings,
there
is
presently
no
right
to
counsel.’
The
Federal
court
may
request
counsel
to
represent
a
prisoner,2
but
counsel
must
serve
without
compensation.
The
courts
will
generally
grant
such
a
request
only
when
they
feel
the
need
for
oral
argument
or
because
of
some
exceptional
circumstances.
In
the
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Third
Cir-
cuit,
located
in
Philadelphia,
in
only
six
out
of
thirty
recently
decided
habeas
appeals
was
the
prisoner
represented
by
counsel.3
Over
a
broad
time
span
it
appears
that
approximately
a
third
of
the
motions
decided
by
this
Court
are
by
prisoners
on
their
own
behalf
without
the
assist-
ance
of
counsel.
A
number
of
deleterious
effects
flow
from
this
lack
of
expert
legal
advice
in
the
prison.
Some
of
these
effects
will
be
discussed
in
the
body
of
this
paper.
For
instance
prisoners
are
constantly
frustrated
by
the
judicial
bureaucracy
they
do
not
understand.
The
already
insufficient
administrative
staff
of
the
court
is
further
strained
by
processing
incor-
rect
and
untimely
petitions.
And
the
worthy
and
just
petitions
of
some
inmates
are
often
temporarily,
and
may
be
indefinitely,
delayed.
In
order
to
handle
the
increasing
influx
of
prisoner
litigation,
most
Federal
Circuit
Courts
have
appointed
law
clerks
assigned
to
the
han-
dling
of
papers submitted
by
prisoners.
As
the
law
clerk
for
the
Third
Circuit,
I
answer
more
than
fifty
letters
a
month
from
prisoners.
These
prisoner
litigators
are
often
uneducated,
in
some
instances
scarcely
literate,
and
usually
must
be
guided
through
every
procedural
step
in
federal
litigation.
1
The
U.
S.
Supreme
Court
has
not
yet
ruled
on
the
question.
Those
Circuit
Courts
that
have,
have
held
that
the
appointment
of
counsel
is
discretionary
with
the
court,
e.g.,
U.
S.
ex
rel.
Manning
v.
Brierley,
392
F.
2d
197
(3rd
Cir.
1968),
or
that
counsel
need
only
be
appointed
in
those
cases
in
which
it
would
be
a
denial
of
Due
Process
to
proceed
without
one,
e.g.,
Dillon
v.
U.
S.,
307
F.
2d
445
(9th
Cir.
1962).
2
28
U.
S.
C.
section
1915.
3
Nearly
a
hundred
habeas
corpus
appeals
are
docketed
in
the
Third
Circuit
every
year.
These
are
screened
out
of
approximately
four
times
that
many
motions
requesting
leave
to
appeal
a
district
court
denial
of
habeas.
To continue reading
Request your trial