In California, a judge must explicitly warn a defendant of the pitfalls of self representation before the defendant's waiver of his constitutional right to counsel can be valid. In People v. Nagy, the judge instead said the following:
�I have to go over certain criteria regarding whether or not I�ll give you the right to represent yourself. I mean, you do have the right. I�ve never been one to believe what the appellate courts say that somehow I follow it, but I sometimes wonder if they really know what they are saying when I have to go over and try to convince you not to do this since it�s a constitutional right, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court in Faretta versus California. And since
it is such a right I don�t know why I have to try to talk you out of it. In fact, sometimes I try to not to encourage defendant�s to do so [sic], but I think it is in your best interest to do so. You�ll feel better about yourself. You�ll feel better about the case. You get to ask the questions you want to ask. . . ."
The defendant had been sentenced to seven years for vehicle theft. But today the Sixth District Court of Appeal said: "[H]ere, where defendant proceeded to trial without a lawyer and without a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, he is entitled to an automatic reversal of his convictions." The unpublished opinion is here.