MBE Rules · Criminal Procedure
Self-Representation
Faretta v. California
The rule
A defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive counsel and proceed pro se if competent to stand trial; the right is denied for disruption, and no self-representation right exists on appeal.
In plain English
A defendant has the right to represent themselves in court if they can do so competently and understand the consequences of waiving their right to an attorney. However, if they disrupt the proceedings, the court can deny this right, and it does not apply during appeals.
Worked example
John, charged with theft, decides he wants to represent himself in court. He demonstrates a clear understanding of the charges and the trial process, so the judge allows him to proceed pro se. However, during the trial, John becomes disruptive, yelling at the judge, which leads to the court revoking his self-representation right. Ultimately, he is forced to accept a public defender.
Memory hook
You can go solo in court, but don't disrupt the show!
The trap
Exams often include scenarios where a defendant appears competent but later becomes disruptive, testing your understanding of when self-representation can be revoked.
How examiners test it
Questions typically present a fact pattern where a defendant initially waives counsel but later engages in behavior that could lead to the loss of that right, requiring you to analyze the implications.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.