Although the Supreme Court previously stated, in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)
'the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Consitution prohibit the State from 'haling a person into its criminal courts and there forcing a lawyer upon him, even when he insists that he wants to conduct hos own defense,'it later recognized in Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S.Ct. 2379 (2008) "a mental-illness-related limitation on the scope of the self-representation right." In Edwards, the Supremes concluded that
the Constitution permits judges to take realistic account of the particular defendant’s mental capacities by asking whether a defendant who seeks to conduct his own defense at trial is mentally competent to do so. That is to say the Constitution permits States to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial under Dusky but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.In reaching this conclusion the Supreme Court determined that trial judges are usually in the best position to make "fine-tuned mental capacity decisions." Accordingly, the CCA applied an abuse of discretion standard, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's determination, upheld the decision denying the defendant's right to proceed pro se.