Criminal Procedure - Supreme Judicial Court Delineates Method for Application of Forfeiture to Indigent Criminal Defendant - Commonwealth V. Means

By Ball, Caitlin E. | Suffolk University Law Review, Summer 2010 | Go to article overview

Criminal Procedure - Supreme Judicial Court Delineates Method for Application of Forfeiture to Indigent Criminal Defendant - Commonwealth V. Means


Ball, Caitlin E., Suffolk University Law Review


Criminal Procedure--Supreme Judicial Court Delineates Method for Application of Forfeiture to Indigent Criminal Defendant--Commonwealth v. Means, 907 N.E.2d 646 (Mass. 2009)

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental right that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." (1) Nevertheless, indigent defendants may relinquish their court-appointed counsel by three methods: voluntary waiver, waiver by conduct, and forfeiture. (2) In Commonwealth v. Means, (3) the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) considered whether the trial court's application of the doctrine of forfeiture, a novel matter in Massachusetts, was constitutional and appropriate in comparison to well-founded guidelines set forth by other federal and state jurisdictions. (4) The SJC, taking into account its own precedent, further examined the impact of a defendant's mental incapacity on the applicability of the forfeiture doctrine. (5) In determining that employment of forfeiture was incorrect, the SJC held that the trial court unconstitutionally infringed upon a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by denying the defendant a proper hearing prior to the exercise of the forfeiture doctrine. (6)

On March 15, 2002, a grand jury indicted Mark Means on a series of charges, including assault and battery on a correction officer and being a habitual criminal. (7) Due to his indigent status, the court appointed an attorney to assist Means with his defense. (8) In April 2004, Means filed the first in a series of motions petitioning the court to remove his appointed counsel and assign a different attorney, citing dissatisfaction with his attorney's job performance and communication efforts. (9) The court allowed trial counsel's subsequent motion to withdraw, appointing the attorney as standby counsel, but then ordered his reinstatement as trial counsel despite Means's submission of multiple pro se motions urging removal of counsel due to Means's anger management disorder. (10)

In March 2005, Means submitted an affidavit to the court stating that he had forwarded a blood-smeared letter to his court-appointed counsel threatening violence to counsel if he did not remove himself from Means's case. (11) At the August 2005 hearing on Means's March 2005 motion, the judge granted Means's motion and removed counsel, but declared Means had forfeited his right to proceed with any appointed attorney as a result of "egregious misconduct." (12) Means subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, discussing his mental health issues and reiterating that he was incapable of representing himself at trial, which a single appeals court judge denied without a hearing. (13)

Means represented himself at the trial for his assault and battery charges, and the jury found him guilty. (14) Means immediately stood trial before the same jury on the habitual criminal charge, where he protested representing himself and once more requested that the court appoint him counsel. (15) Again, the judge denied his motion and the jury found him guilty. (16) Means appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which rejected his petition, and then to the SJC, questioning the application of forfeiture in light of his behavior and challenging the forfeiture doctrine itself as unconstitutionally depriving him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. (17) The SJC granted Means's appeal and overturned his convictions, holding that a hearing is required for the defendant to offer an explanation of his behavior prior to removing counsel under the forfeiture doctrine. (18)

The Sixth Amendment provides all citizens the fundamental right to criminal defense counsel, regardless of their financial status, to help preserve the intrinsic human values of life and freedom. (19) Nevertheless, the right to counsel is not absolute, as defendants can surrender it by voluntary waiver, waiver by conduct, and forfeiture. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Criminal Procedure - Supreme Judicial Court Delineates Method for Application of Forfeiture to Indigent Criminal Defendant - Commonwealth V. Means
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.