Will US Supreme Court Rule Higher Standards for Self-Representation - If so, Will Anthony Pellicano Get Grounds for Appeal

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard a case involving self-representation.  The specific issue was that the person representing himself at his trial was a certified mentally-ill [schizophrenic] man who was ruled competent to stand trial. As LEGAL TIMES' Tony Mauro describes the situation before the Supremes, the oral argument "weighed the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation against a state's interest in not having trials 'descend into farce.'"

The name of the case is "Indiana v. Edwards."  The Indiana Supreme Court, reports Mauro, ruled that defendant Ahmad Edwards had been denied his right of self-representation in an alleged robbery and shooting.  The state of Indiana argued that the dignity of the court must be preserved by setting a higher standard for self-representation for the mentally ill.

As many of us know, private investigator Anthony Pellicano is representing himself in his illegally-used wiretap trial in California.  Why? is what most of us asked and speculated about.  This guy is a fox so there must have been a reason besides "saving money" that he decided to defend himself.  If the US Supremes rule an overall higher standard in self-representation, then Pellicano might have grounds for a new trial if the verdict goes against him.  If the ruling is a higher standard for only those with mental illness, then Pellicano might go doctor-shopping for a diagnosis.