Fighting the law ... and upholding itand upholding it

My jaunt in traffic court made me realize many things: First, the San Mateo County courthouse is an immaculate facility compared to its counterpart in the north. Second, officers do come to court, contrary to the notion that they have better things to do with their time. And, lastly, playing attorney can be a nerve-wracking experience.

Although I emerged victorious in my brief legal career, I can't possibly imagine that I could do the same under more serious circumstances - for instance, murder. It's one thing to have the chance to cross-examine your accuser; it's quite another to do it yourself.

Yet, this morning, a San Mateo man facing a new murder trial after a successful appeal will ask for that right. Carleton Cook, 45, wants to personally convince a jury this fall that he did not bludgeon a drug dealer to death and leave his body for days in a local motel room. While a court-appointed defense attorney failed to elude conviction for him three years ago, Cook believes he will fare better on his own. Under California law, he can try as long as he is deemed competent.

Opportunities like self-representation are what make our judicial system shine. Will Cook be found guilty? Probably. Not only does the evidence appear stacked against him, nearly all first-degree murder defendants representing themselves are convicted. Will his actions prolong the trial? Again, probably. Even with three years of access to the prison law library, Cook won't necessarily be skilled in all aspects of courtroom procedure.

Are any of these reasons why he shouldn't be allowed to do it? Not at all.

The chance to defend oneself is imperative. Americans rally against countries whose regimes squash the notions of a speedy trial or the right to face an accuser. Yet, we rarely use those privileges ourselves - at least if the defendants in traffic court are any example. Although they all pleaded not guilty, nobody took the chance to cross-examine or plead their case. At least Cook is being proactive.

Confessed killer Seti Scanlan also tried to be his own attorney but a judge said no and the state Supreme Court didn't overturn the decision. He is considered competent and the refusal gives him grounds for a new trial. It also sends a chilling message that some judges don't believe a mentally able person knows what's best for them. Not only does that fly in the face of the law, it is patronizing. Cook and Scanlan may not be the latest magna cum laude graduate from Stanford Law School, but that is no reason to deny them their rights. If it can happen to them what is going to stop it from happening to everybody else?

What if I was appointed an attorney for my traffic case (not a legal possibility but work with me here) who did not agree with what I wanted? What if the attorney insisted in pleading guilty when I did not want to or refused to let me testify? What if the attorney just sat there without cross-examining and the judge refused to let me do it myself? One should not be a hostage to an attorney's wishes.

On a less extreme scale, what if I simply could do better? I obviously didn't do too shabby with traffic court; while I don't think the same could be said in a felony criminal court I don't want the option snatched from me at a judge's whim.

Each of us has the constitutional guarantee to fight the law but to do so we need judges and courts that uphold it.

Michelle Durand's column runs every Monday and Thursday. She can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 104. What do you think of this column? Send a letter to the editor: letters@smdailyjournal.com.