Assistance of Counsel is Not an Absolute Right
Americans often like to cite the various rights guaranteed them by the United States Constitution and with good reason; these guarantees protect and empower Americans in various ways. These rights, however, are anything but guaranteed. The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions, but this right, like any right, can be taken away if it is not used responsibly. A recent Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals case illustrates this idea.
Mr. Willis, the defendant, was charged with four counts of Tennessee first-degree murder and three counts of abusing corpses, and the State of Tennessee was seeking the death penalty. Mr. Willis, in an effort to delay his impending trial, attempted to get his appointed counsel to withdraw from representation so he would be appointed a different attorney and, more importantly, his trial date would be pushed back to give that attorney time to get familiar with the case. As trial dates approached, Mr. Willis would refuse to communicate with his attorney, would file complaints against his attorney with the Board of Professional Responsibility, or would attempt to sue his attorney in some fashion in order to get the court to dismiss the attorney and appoint someone else.
The first time Mr. Willis employed this tactic, the trial court had a lengthy discussion with him and explained to him that although he had a right to assistance of counsel, abuse of that right would lead to both its forfeiture and Mr. Willis representing himself in his murder trial. The court explained how difficult and dangerous it was for defendants to represent themselves, but Mr. Willis was apparently unconvinced.
Despite being given the opportunity by the trial court to justify his complaints against his attorneys, Mr. Willis was unable to provide any justification for his actions. He persisted in using the same tactics to get his appointed attorneys to withdraw or be dismissed as the trial date neared and eventually ended up representing himself at trial. Mr. Willis was unsuccessful at trial, as most pro se defendants are, and appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals on the ground that he should have been provided counsel at trial. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals denied his appeal and held that Mr. Willis’s conduct was manipulative and abusive of judicial process and found that he had waived his right to an attorney through his behavior in attempting to postpone his trial dates.
The right to assistance of counsel is one that the courts are hesitant to infringe upon, but Mr. Willis’s case shows that it can be taken away. Defendants are allowed to disagree with their attorneys and seek new attorneys if they feel they are not being represented to the best of that attorney’s ability, but they are not allowed to abuse the appointment mechanism for the purpose of postponing trial dates. Despite the trial court’s repeated attempts to inform Mr. Willis of the imminent consequences of his actions he continued to abuse the process, probably believing that eventually he would be forced to use a certain attorney and go to trial. Instead he was stripped of the right to an appointed attorney and left without competent counsel in what was literally a matter of life and death.
Bookmark: 
