The case of Nevada v. Robert Telles is set for another pretrial hearing on August 7, 2024, and the question whether Robert Telles should represent himself looms in the air. It also raises the question about whether the average citizen is competent to represent themselves—considering the totality of experience and training an average attorney needs to practice law in any given courtroom.
Robert Telles is facing murder charges in the death of Las Vegas Review-Journal investigative reporter Jeff German. German had exposed Telles' toxic work environment as a Clark County public administrator, a role responsible for handling estates after someone's death. The article also hinted at a potentially inappropriate relationship between Telles and his staff member Roberta Lee-Kennett. According to investigators, Telles disguised himself as a landscaper and attacked German outside his home, stabbing him in the neck. Telles maintains that he is being framed for the crime. If convicted, he could face life in prison.
Consider for a moment the level of training, certification, and experience needed for an attorney to step into the courtroom and manage legal proceedings.
First, an attorney completes a four-year undergraduate degree followed by three years of law school to earn a Juris Doctorate. Throughout their education, they gain knowledge of legal principles and theories and have access to extensive resources, including law libraries, to research various legal issues.
After graduating from law school, attorneys who wish to practice in the courtroom must pass the bar examination. Once they are licensed, they are held accountable by the jurisdiction's code of ethics and monitored by the bar association.
How does the average citizen—including those who have attained a college education—adequately defend themselves?
Moreover, consider that trained attorneys stand on both sides of the courtroom as defense attorneys and prosecutors. It is reasonable to assert the average citizen does not maintain sufficient legal knowledge to contend with a lawyer who does.
So, then, what is the resolution?
When judges determine that a defendant is capable of self-representation, it is not uncommon for them to guide the defendant through the legal process. Throughout the proceedings, the judge may pause and provide explanations on various legal concepts, such as how to frame a non-leading question.
However, judges have the authority to appoint an attorney for the defendant, even if the defendant is reluctant. Once an attorney is assigned, the defendant can choose to collaborate with the attorney or oppose their recommendations.
In some jurisdictions, such as Tennessee, the issue of defendants lacking legal experience and education is addressed by appointing an "Elbow Attorney." This is a lawyer who sits alongside the self-represented defendant, offering guidance and answering legal questions throughout the proceedings.
As the pretrial hearing for Nevada v. Robert Telles approaches, the question of whether Telles should represent himself underscores a fundamental challenge in the legal system: the gap between the expertise required for effective legal representation and the abilities of the average citizen.
Given the extensive training and certification needed to practice law, the average person may struggle to navigate complex legal proceedings effectively. While judges can offer some guidance or appoint an attorney, as seen with the "Elbow Attorney" model in jurisdictions like Tennessee, the resolution ultimately revolves around ensuring that defendants receive the competent representation necessary to ensure a fair trial.
Comments