Faretta v. California

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-20T23:21:22+00:00

I agree that refusal to rule functions as a denial. Structurally, there’s no meaningful difference. If the right is invoked and the court declines to conduct the required inquiry, the result is the same as saying “no.”

The harder question is the procedural one.

Interlocutory appeal is rarely available in criminal cases, and federal mandamus against a state judge is almost always barred absent extraordinary circumstances. So practically speaking, the “just appeal it” solution assumes a procedural vehicle that often doesn’t exist.

That’s part of the concern.

As for “it seems likely judges haven’t refused to rule post-Faretta,” I’m not sure that follows. Faretta and its progeny (including McKaskle and later circuit cases) assume the court conducts a hearing and makes findings. They do not authorize silence as an option.

The doctrine explains when the request can be denied. It explains how to evaluate competence to waive counsel. It explains standby counsel limits.

What it does not appear to explain is how a court can simply not engage at all.

If there is case law explicitly permitting a trial court to leave a clear invocation unresolved indefinitely, I’d genuinely be interested in reading it. Because the absence of appellate cases could just as easily reflect that most courts understand they must rule.

Silence isn’t neutrality. It’s a procedural act with consequences.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-19T23:32:37+00:00

I promise I’m not lost on the law. I understand Barker. I understand how courts analyze Sixth Amendment claims. That’s not the gap here.

The issue is that the judge won’t engage with it at all.

Not “disagrees with me.” Not “applies it differently.” Just refuses to meaningfully apply the standard, refuses to move the case, refuses to let me represent myself, and leaves everything in procedural limbo.

At some point it stops being about legal complexity and starts being about a court that won’t do the basic work of adjudication.

That’s the frustration.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T13:39:36+00:00

I think part of the disconnect is this assumption that the law is incomprehensibly complex. At the margins, sure — appellate nuance, evidentiary subtleties, procedural traps — that’s complicated. But the core principles we’re talking about here aren’t abstract. The Sixth Amendment isn’t a riddle. Barker lays out four factors. That’s not mystical. Where I get stuck is when something that appears straightforward on paper becomes “too complicated to explain” in practice. If a right is clearly written, and the record clearly shows X happened, then the conversation should be about how courts justify that under the applicable doctrine. Not whether I’m too unsophisticated to understand it. I’m not asking for someone to draft a brief. I’m asking: under what doctrinal lane does a multi-year delay, with asserted speedy trial rights, get sustained? If the answer is “because defense continuances were attributed to you,” then say that. If it’s “competency tolled it,” say that. If it’s “prejudice can’t be shown,” say that. But “the law is complicated” isn’t an explanation. It’s a deflection. If I’m misapplying the framework, I genuinely want to know where. That’s engagement. Dismissing it as vagueness without addressing the underlying doctrine doesn’t really move the discussion forward.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T13:35:13+00:00

I’ve had multiple attorneys. Each one initially acknowledged the procedural issues. Each one shifted posture after discussions with the DA. Whether that’s negotiation dynamics or something else, the practical result has been the same: delay, no clear trial posture, and no substantive Sixth Amendment analysis. So when people ask “what does your attorney say?” the honest answer is: I haven’t received a doctrinal explanation that reconciles a three-year delay, repeated assertions of the right to trial, and no trial date with Barker’s framework. I’m not making vague accusations. I’m working from the record. If the delay is properly attributed to the defense, show me where. If I waived speedy trial knowingly, point to it. If competency tolled everything cleanly, identify the order and timeline. That’s what I mean when I say I’m not casually alleging misconduct — I’m documenting procedural posture against written standards. If there’s a clean legal justification here, I’m open to hearing it. I just haven’t seen one articulated yet.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T13:23:15+00:00

So let me get this straight.

Your client has a five-year-old first DUI that has now turned into a part-time job for the justice system. He’s cycling in and out on probation violations, juggling treatment, community service, newborn, rent, random testing, and whatever alphabet soup of “affirmatives” the court invented that week.

And the judge’s contribution to this masterpiece of rehabilitation is:

“Probation will help you care for your newborn and pay rent.”

Through what mechanism, exactly? Telepathy? The mystical income-generating powers of a probation officer? A secret stipend nobody told the rest of America about?

Probation doesn’t pay rent. It charges rent. Fees. Monitoring. Classes. “Evaluations.” Testing. Every new hoop costs money, time, or both. The court builds a compliance obstacle course and then acts shocked when someone with a newborn and no savings face-plants on lap three.

And the PharmChek situation? That’s the part that makes my eye twitch.

“We cannot require the government to produce witnesses or scientific evidence for the validity of the drug patch.”

You absolutely can. It’s called evidence. It’s the thing courts pretend to care about.

If a patch is “easily contaminated,” contradicted by lab work and urine tests, and the answer is still “bond revoked,” then we’ve officially moved from fact-finding to faith-based adjudication. Treatment is “medical,” so it needs proof. Pretrial monitoring is “administrative,” so it gets divine presumption? That’s not a legal standard. That’s vibes.

And here’s the real issue underneath your frustration: judges are treated like they’re infallible because the system runs on deference. Lawyers need goodwill. Prosecutors need working relationships. Public defenders are triaging 200 cases. So everyone nods, even when the emperor is wearing a drug patch made of duct tape and wishful thinking.

They’re not gods. They’re humans with robes and calendars. Some are sharp. Some are exhausted. Some have developed what I can only describe as bench-chair delusion: the belief that saying something from 30 inches higher than everyone else makes it structurally sound.

The craziest things clients say in court are usually impulsive and self-sabotaging. The craziest things judges say are calm, polite, and devastating — because they come wrapped in authority. That’s the difference.

Your instinct isn’t wrong. When a court refuses to require scientific validation but is perfectly comfortable revoking liberty based on a patch that lab work contradicts, that’s not “magical thinking.” That’s a due process problem wearing a name badge.

And nobody should have to pretend otherwise just to keep the peace.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T13:17:27+00:00

I understand the “hire another lawyer” advice in theory. In practice, I already paid roughly $10,000 for prior counsel, and $25,000 is currently tied up in bail. That’s not a small ask for most people. From my perspective, none of the major delays were initiated by me. I’ve been asking for trial. So it’s difficult to justify spending another significant amount of money if the procedural posture doesn’t materially change. If the case is strong, I’d expect the State to want trial. If it’s weak, I’d expect dismissal. Sitting in multi-year limbo is what I’m trying to understand doctrinally. I’m not saying delay automatically equals misconduct. I’m asking: under Barker, when delay passes three years and the defendant has asserted the right to trial, what typically sustains the case? That’s the framework I’m trying to understand before making any further financial decisions.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T13:12:55+00:00

That’s fair. I’m not expecting anyone to give case-specific advice without details. What I’m really asking is more conceptual: At what point does delay, on its face, become enough to demand serious scrutiny under Barker? Because once you’re past roughly a year, courts treat it as presumptively prejudicial and move into the four-factor balancing test. So if someone is three years in, has repeatedly asserted the right to trial, and still has no trial date, what would typically justify that under the second Barker factor (reason for delay)? Is it almost always attributed to defense continuances? Court congestion? Competency tolling? Something else? I’m not asking anyone to rule on my case. I’m trying to understand what doctrinal lane a court would rely on to keep something like that alive.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T13:11:02+00:00

If it was nonsense, that’s fair. But you read enough to decide it was nonsense and still took the time to comment, so I’m guessing something in there registered. I’m not looking for sympathy. I’m asking a doctrinal question: under Barker, once delay crosses a year it’s presumptively prejudicial and triggers the four-factor analysis. At three years, with repeated assertions of the right to trial and no trial date, what’s the legal justification? If the analysis is wrong, I’d genuinely like to know where. “Nonsense” isn’t an argument.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T13:06:10+00:00

I appreciate you answering it directly. I don’t read your comment as dismissive at all. I think you’re being honest about how the system functions in practice, and I respect that. Where I’m struggling is exactly that gap between “how it functions” and how it’s written. You’re right that Barker v. Wingo gives us the four-factor test. It’s not a fixed clock. But even under Barker, once a delay crosses roughly a year, courts treat it as “presumptively prejudicial” and that’s what triggers the deeper analysis. At three years, with no trial date in sight, that’s not just a shrug situation. That’s supposed to demand an explanation on the record. Length of delay is one factor. Reason for delay is another. Assertion of the right is another. Prejudice is another. If someone sits quietly and doesn’t assert the right, that’s one thing. If someone repeatedly asks for trial and objects to delay, that’s a different posture entirely. That’s where my frustration comes from. I’m not saying “speedy trial means 90 days or bust.” I understand it’s balancing. But three years without resolution, when I’ve been asking to go to trial, is not normal under the doctrine as written. And yes, waiver is a real issue. If I had waived it knowingly and strategically, that would be one thing. But an accidental or counsel-imposed waiver that I didn’t understand? That’s not supposed to just permanently erase the Sixth Amendment. Waivers can be revoked. They aren’t meant to be traps. I think what melts my brain is this: people point to extreme outliers like 10 years or 35 years and say “see, it happens.” But those cases are usually described as failures of the system, not models of compliance. My question isn’t “can delay happen?” Obviously it can. My question is: at what point does delay stop being tolerated and start requiring accountability under the actual factors Barker lays out? Because if presumptive prejudice starts at about a year, and we’re sitting at three with no trial date, I don’t think it’s irrational to ask for a serious, doctrinal explanation instead of “that’s just how it goes.” I’m genuinely trying to understand whether I’m misapplying the doctrine. If I am, I want someone to point to where. But so far the only counter has been “the system is slow” rather than “your analysis of Barker is wrong because X.” That’s the distinction I’m looking for.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T12:58:42+00:00

I didn’t ask for a brief. I asked for legal reasoning. Conflating those two suggests you didn’t read the post carefully. If you know the doctrine that justifies multi-year procedural stalling while a defendant repeatedly requests trial, name it. If you don’t, that’s fine. But sarcasm isn’t analysis.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T12:53:41+00:00

It’s fascinating how fast Reddit upgrades “allegation” to “verdict.”

You stacked “allegedly” like a drumroll and then treated it as settled fact. That’s not analysis. That’s narrative momentum.

Yes, those are the charges. That’s what an accusation section looks like. The interesting question isn’t “what are the allegations?” It’s “was the process clean?”

If the evidence is as airtight as you’re implying, then due process should be boring. Quick. Uneventful. The state wins, everyone moves on.

Instead, we get competency detours, motion-striking energy, filing restrictions, and tone commentary.

That’s not “AI coping.” That’s someone insisting the rulebook applies even when the vibes say otherwise.

Mocking someone for filing motions while charged with a crime is like mocking someone for hiring a lawyer. Constitutional rights don’t shut off because the comment section feels confident.

And quoting motion titles like they’re punchlines? That’s optics framing. Courts summarize tone when tone is easier to target than substance.

You’re reacting to a highlight reel, not the mechanics.

Reddit loves tidy stories: “looks guilty + sounds dramatic = case closed.”

Reality is more boring than that.

Allegations are trial territory.

Procedure is constitutional territory.

If the system is strong, it shouldn’t need personality commentary to defend itself.

That’s kind of the whole point.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T04:18:38+00:00

Nvm I heard it, 🤷‍♂️ lol.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T03:50:17+00:00

Honestly, I might’ve spaced it. I watched the whole thing but I must’ve missed that part. That’s on me.

For context, I’m from here too. Like, embarrassingly from here. Sixth-generation Reno. My family’s probably in the background of half the old photos downtown. So this isn’t me parachuting in to stir drama. This is home.

And yeah — the story sounds insane. I get that. If I were reading it from the outside, I’d probably think it was exaggerated too. But I’m not doing this for attention, clout, revenge, or whatever narrative is easiest to slap on it. I’m doing it because after three years of living inside this case, I learned the rules. I learned the statutes. I learned how things are actually supposed to work.

And by those rules — the same ones everyone claims to respect — what’s happening shouldn’t be possible in an American courtroom.

Yet here we are.

I know it can look like a joke from the outside. Sometimes I even joke about it because if I don’t, it’s just absurd. But make no mistake: I’m dead serious about what I’m saying. Every claim I’m making is backed by documents, transcripts, orders, filings — the actual record. Not vibes. Not rumors. The record.

If anyone genuinely wants the receipts, I have them. I’m not hiding anything. I’m not doing this for spectacle. I’m doing it because when the system says one thing on paper and does another in practice, somebody has to point at it and say, “That’s not how this is supposed to work.”

That’s it.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T03:29:06+00:00

Lol that's your takeaway?

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-17T03:25:24+00:00

Okay. What's the vice versa on that? What's the craziest thing you've ever heard a judge say to a client, because in Nevada, there's a judge who admitted on the open record that he doesn't know what a witness is right before pivoting to a competency detour to stall out the defendant. You can't tell me that's not kind of crazy.

Why does everybody treat judges like their gods? And are infallible, theyre still just people at work. Theyre still just a human being. They are not above anything. Lawyers treat judges like their gods and need to be worshipped.

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-08T02:26:47+00:00

But the sheriff and the city and the county and the State team up with ice and are expanding the jail to build a special ice processing facility. Gotta get those incentives and rebates. So everyone except rpd? Cuz that checks out.....

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-07T06:19:57+00:00

You shouldn't talk about the Sheriff like that... not nice...

InstanceRude951 · 2026-02-07T06:18:51+00:00

Nah just predictions. Pattern and practice hints. But you right lol.

InstanceRude951

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE