You can bet that the name Harold J. Stewart will be spoken in hushed tones throughout prisons across America.  He is “da man.”  He did what every defendant dreams of doing.  He beat the system, and he did it himself.  Stewart beat a first degree murder case.  Pro se.  No one can remember that having happened before.

According to the Washington Post, via  Jon Katz and Carolyn Elefant, Stewart won an acquittal in Prince George’s County, Maryland, Circuit Court on the retrial of his murder 1 prosecution.  In his first trial, a mistrial was declared after it came to light that one of the jurors didn’t speak English well enough to understand the jury instructions.  Hey Anne, how can it possibly happen that no one, not prosecutor, defense or judge realize that the guy doesn’t speak English?

The family then hired a lawyer, who upon review of the transcript (including his sister who testified that Stewart confessed), advised him to cop a plea.  Stewart refused, and the lawyer withdrew.  Left without counsel, Stewart decided to go it alone.

At the second trial, Stewart’s sister backtracked from her original testimony, explaining that Stewart had asked for help and denying that he ever expressed concern that he’d killed someone.  And Simpson also seized on a discrepancy between a witness’ statement that placed the incident two hours earlier than the time that paramedics arrived at the scene.   Stewart did not call any witnesses.  The jury deliberated only an hour before arriving at the not guilty verdict.

This is the stuff of dreams for defendants, every one of whom thinks after his conviction that he could have beat the case himself.  They are positive of it, obsessing over every minute factual discrepancy and believing, in his deepest heart, that he could have done better. 

But as Jon notes, “[u]unknown is the extent to which Mr. Stewart won his trial because of any effective self-representation or despite mistakes on his part.”  Indeed, there are many questions about how a result like this came about, but there are also some things we know too well.

First, there is a greater likelihood that a person will win the powerball lottery three time than beat a murder 1 charge at trial.  Two, every case is different in small and large ways, though a defendant never lets this detail bother him when he argues that somebody else won their case, why didn’t he.  Three, the inability to be sufficiently detached makes it impossible to appreciate what matters at trial, as defendants obsess about silly things (he said 4 second and it was 6 seconds) and ignore big problems (like the videotaped confession).  And four, most defendants do not realize that they simply aren’t very bright, which helps to explain how they find themselves in this mess to begin with.

Stewart will empower defendants around the country to take charge of their fate.  This is good and bad.  It’s good because defendants should be involved.  It’s their lives, and they turn blindly to a lawyer without giving any scrutiny to the lawyers competence, interest or choices.  Defendants must have a better understanding of what is happening, for it’s their lives at stake.

But it’s bad to the extent that they believe that they know things or can direct the defense beyond the limits of their ability.  Empowerment only works to the extent that it’s rationally justified.  After that, the Dunning-Kruger effect takes over, and it’s all downhill from there.

So congratulations to Mr. Stewart for a job well done, or at least a darn good outcome.  But I caution the 50,000 Stewart wannabes in the wings that they may not be so lucky.  Don’t get crazy, even though it is your life.