Whether Edwards' heightened competency standards apply when a court grants a borderline competent and mentally ill defendant's request to represent himself at trial and waive his Sixth Amendment rights to representation of counsel

QUESTION PRESENTED Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) establishes a heightened competency standard that courts must apply when denying a questionably competent defendant's request to proceed to trial pro se. However, this Court has not yet addressed the question of whether lower, trial courts must apply Edwards’ heightened competency standard in cases where a court grants a borderline mentally competent defendant's request to proceed to trial pro se, when such a standard should be imposed, and what such an inquiry might require to protect the constitutional safeguards given under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The time is ripe for this issue to be decided by this Court. In this case, the Court finds Patterson mentally competent to stand trial. By extension, the trial court (and by its affirmance the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals) determines, without hearing or inquiry prior to doing so, that Patterson is also competent to represent himself at trial and thereby waive his Sixth Amendment right to representation. Throughout the underlying conduct, pre-trial and trial, Patterson exhibits bizarre behavior contrary to his interests, questionable for any rational person to do, and visible for all the world to see. The courts below conclude that Patterson is not entitled to a higher standard of inquiry under Edwards and that even if he is, his conduct at trial supports that he is “competent” to represent himself. Thus, the courts reason that no violation of Patterson’s rights occurred. In light of this, the questions presented for this Court's review are: ; ii 1. Whether Edwards’ heightened competency standards apply when a court grants a borderline competent and mentally ill defendant's request to represent himself at trial and waive his Sixth Amendment rights to representation of counsel. 2. Whether the trial court is required to conduct an additional inquiry and first ascertain that a borderline competent and mentally ill defendant is capable of selfrepresentation prior to allowing that defendant to waive his Sixth Amendment right to representation. ili