skip navigation
search

MARTINEZ V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CAL.,FOURTH APPELLATE DIST. (98-7809) 528 U.S. 152 (2000)
Affirmed.
Syllabus
 
Opinion
[ Stevens ]
Concurrence
[ Kennedy ]
Concurrence
[ Breyer ]
Concurrence
[ Scalia ]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

Breyer, J., concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


No. 98—7809

SALVADOR MARTINEZ, PETITIONER v. COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

[January 12, 2000]

    Justice Breyer, concurring.

    I agree with the Court and join its opinion. Because Justice Scalia writes separately to underscore the continuing constitutional validity of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), I note that judges closer to the firing line have sometimes expressed dismay about the practical consequences of that holding. See e.g., United States v. Farhad, 190 F.3d 1097, 1107 (CA9 1999) (concurring opinion) (right of self-representation “frequently, though not always, conflicts squarely and inherently with the right to a fair trial”). I have found no empirical research, however, that might help determine whether, in general, the right to represent oneself furthers, or inhibits, the Constitution’s basic guarantee of fairness. And without some strong factual basis for believing that Faretta’s holding has proved counterproductive in practice, we are not in a position to reconsider the constitutional assumptions that underlie that case.