im aware that courts will gladly let you self-incriminate til the cows come home (as ive stupidly done in traffic court lmao), but this feels wrong on some level. i can understand cops lying to chris about this (as theyre legally allowed to do in every jurisdiction thanks to SCOTUS), but a judge
and a public defender allowing someone who is visibly, audibly, and otherwise absolutely incapable of even attempting to take the situation seriously seems willfully ignorant of a persons right to a fair trial.
cornell law claims that "[the Court] must find that the absence of that fairness ("as applied to a criminal trial, denial of due process is the failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice)" fatally infected the trial". i cannot, as much as i loathe and disapprove of chris' actions, believe that he can fairly represent himself in any court under any charges given his absolute inability to comprehend or experience reality. afaik cornell doesnt weight in on the subject of a defendants cognative inability to self denfense in the legal system, but surely it should be a consideration, regardless of how guilty chris likely (definitely) is.