Criminal Procedure-Supreme Judicial Court Delineates Method for Application of Forfeiture to Indigent Criminal Defendant-Commonwealth v. Means, 907 N.E.2d 646 (Mass. 2009)

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental right that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”  Nevertheless, indigent defendants may relinquish their court-appointed counsel by three methods: voluntary waiver, waiver by conduct, and forfeiture.  In Commonwealth v. Means, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) considered whether the trial court’s application of the doctrine of forfeiture, a novel matter in Massachusetts, was constitutional and appropriate in comparison to well-founded guidelines set forth by other federal and state jurisdictions.  The SJC, taking into account its own precedent, further examined the impact of a defendant’s mental incapacity on the applicability of the forfeiture doctrine.  In determining that employment of forfeiture was incorrect, the SJC held that the trial court unconstitutionally infringed upon a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by denying the defendant a proper hearing prior to the exercise of the forfeiture doctrine. . .