Pro se competence in the aftermath of Indiana v. Edwards

The right to represent oneself at trial is well-established, but not absolute. Recently, in Indiana v. Edwards, the United States Supreme Court considered whether states may demand a higher standard of competence for criminal defendants seeking to represent themselves at trial than that necessary for standing trial with attorney representation. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the Constitution allows states to employ a higher competency standard for pro se defendants. In this analysis of the Court's decision, the authors describe the facts of this case, the legal precedents framing the issues facing the Court, and the Court's rationale for its opinion. The ruling is considered in light of available research involving pro se defendants and whether this ruling is consistent with professional guidelines related to forensic psychiatric practice. Implications of the decision for forensic clinicians and limitations of the decision are discussed.