Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to everyone, but it can be difficult to ensure that it is correctly applied to defendants with disabilities. That has led to major problems, and has been addressed by several cases, including Faretta v. California (1975), McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984), Godinez v. Moran (1993), and Indiana v. Edwards (2008). These cases showcased the issue that the standard for competency to stand trial was linked to the standard for competency to represent oneself. While that seems to make perfect sense, it is actually quite harmful to people who have disabilities, because they may not be able to correctly represent themselves and cannot always be held to the same standards that would be seen with people who do not suffer from any kind of disability. The right to counsel is highly important, because not having counsel can make it very difficult for a defendant to assert any of the other rights he or she has.
Laypeople cannot easily navigate the complexities of the legal system without help from an attorney, and that may be even more accurate for those with disabilities, depending on the particular disability the person has. The Sixth Amendment has remained unchanged since it was created in 1791, but the way in which the right to counsel has been interpreted has changed a great deal between 1791 and the modern day. The original thought was that a person had the right to pay for an attorney to represent them, which meant that people who did not have money...
Those with disabilities were often shunned and/or not able to make the kind of money needed for an attorney. If they were accused of something, they could not get counsel, leading to them generally ending up being judged guilty due to their lack of ability to properly understand the proceedings and defend themselves. The right to counsel that is used today does not require deep pockets.
Before 1963, there were no serious public defender programs in the country, with only three percent of cities having anything that could be considered counsel for those who did not have the money to pay for it. Some attorneys did agree to do pro bono work, but they generally lacked quality, and that could be nearly as poor of a choice as representing oneself. As time moved on, though, many more cities offered programs to help people who could not afford to pay for counsel, as the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was seen not as one where people had the right to pay for an attorney, but where every person had the right to have an attorney to help them. Major court cases in the 1930s enforced the idea that each and every person should be able to have proper representation in a court of law if they were accused of something. That leveled the playing field, but for those with disabilities there was still an issue. They may not be able to properly determine whether they have good legal counsel, and may not understand the value of…
