SHALIMAR - Only quadruple-murder suspect Jeffrey Hutchinson knows if he really believes he's better off without a lawyer or if he's just playing the system.

But if it's a ploy, it's one that's loaded with potential trouble - for the court and for Hutchinson himself.

He is charged with four counts of first-degree murder in the September 1998 slayings of Rene Flaherty and her three children. They were killed with a 12-gauge shotgun in the home he shared with them on John King Road, just south of Crestview.

Hutchinson is scheduled to be in court Wednesday to argue for the right to fire his court-appointed lawyer and represent himself.

The problems of self-representation, especially for cases in which the crime is serious enough to warrant the death penalty, are numerous.

Delays resulting from the defendant's lack of knowledge regarding trial procedure can lead to mistakes that range from phrasing questions improperly to trying to introduce irrelevant evidence.

Jurors have to be ushered in and out of the courtroom while the judge takes up problems with improper procedure.

Juries also have to be admonished to disregard much of what they have heard if the defendant's questions or comments in court are improper or irrelevant.

A lawyerless defendant poses this dilemma for judges:

Improperly deny the defendant what the U.S. Supreme Court has identified as a constitutional right, and an appeals court will send the case back.

But if a judge grants the request but fails to make sure the defendant has the intellect and understanding of the law to act as his own attorney, then the result will be the same.

"When a defendant represents himself, it's not harder to get a conviction, but it makes it harder to protect the defendant's constitutional rights," said Assistant State Attorney David Fleet, who has faced defendants representing themselves.

"If self-representation leads to a weakening of a defendant's constitutional rights, he's going to get convicted, and we're going to go home and feel bad about it."

The right to represent yourself in court is founded on principles as old as pre-colonial English law.

Hutchinson, a 37-year-old former Army Ranger, told a judge during a May 3 hearing that he wants to represent himself.

If the request is granted, he will go up against Assistant State Attorney Bobby Elmore, an experienced prosecutor specifically assigned to handle capital crimes.

Hutchinson could face the death penalty if convicted on any of the four counts of first-degree murder with which he's charged.

The stakes were far less for Anthony Faretta some 30 years ago, when he was charged with grand theft in Los Angeles. He asked to represent himself.

The judge denied the request and insisted that Faretta's defense be handled by a public defender. Faretta was found guilty and sent to prison. He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred by denying him the right to represent himself.

When he lost in the California appeals courts, Faretta appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices struggled with the question before ruling that defendants do have a constitutional right to defend themselves, under the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the 14th Amendment right to due process.

Like most rights, the right to self-representation is not absolute. The Supreme Court held a person "has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so." That means a judge must ensure that a defendant has the mental capacity and ability to act as his own attorney.

The Supreme Court later limited self-representation to criminal trials, reasoning that the Sixth Amendment that guarantees the right of self-representation is a trial right and does not apply to appeals.

The landmark 1975 Faretta ruling concluded that forcing a defendant to accept a state-appointed public defender against his will deprives him of the constitutional right to conduct his own defense.

That is what Hutchinson is expected to argue during Wednesday's hearing.

He was first represented by the public defender's office, but that office had a client who could be called as a witness in Hutchinson's trial.

That conflict of interest led to him being represented by veteran defense lawyers Nick Petersen and John Harrison. Unhappy with them, Hutchinson successfully sought to have them replaced.

Hutchinson "believed that both defense attorneys were conspiring with Assistant State Attorney Robert C. Elmore to put defendant in the electric chair," according to court records.

Hutchinson also believed that "everything he told his attorney in confidence was being relayed to Mr. Elmore."

Elmore dismissed any suggestion of impropriety on the part of the attorneys. During the May 3 hearing, he described Hutchinson's stormy relationship with his lawyers as "lawyer-shopping" and "just a stalling tactic."

It was during that hearing that Hutchinson's most recent court-appointed lawyer, Stephen Cobb, said the accused killer was abandoning an insanity defense. Hutchinson was in court that day hoping to fire Cobb, who he accused of trying to mount an insanity defense against his will.

Okaloosa Circuit Judge G. Robert Barron denied the motion filed on Hutchinson's behalf by Cobb to withdraw from the case.

Barron ordered Cobb to remain on the case, at least for now, and to get ready for a June 26 trial.

Before Barron can allow Hutchinson to fire his third set of court-appointed lawyers and represent himself, he will have to conduct what is known as a Faretta hearing.

The hearing will be held to determine whether Hutchinson is capable of handling his own defense, and most likely will consist of the judge quizzing the defendant closely on his understanding of the law and trial procedure.

Barron's comments in court May 3 suggested Hutchinson has a difficult challenge in persuading the judge to allow him to act as his own lawyer.

If Barron does allow it, he told Hutchinson, the defendant will be on his own and will not be allowed help from a lawyer.

Barron also warned Hutchinson that "information that comes out in that hearing can be detrimental to you," because it could be used against the defendant at trial.

Judges usually discourage self-representation, especially when life terms or the death penalty loom as a distinct possibility.

Acting as your own lawyer is more common in county court, where the stakes are lower, said Okaloosa County Judge T. Patterson Maney.

"For misdemeanors, the legal fees are similar to what they can be in a routine circuit court criminal trial for defending against a serious felony," Maney said, explaining why some defendants opt to be their own lawyers.

"On the flip side, those cases are appealed less often because the length of an appeal can be longer than the time served," he said. "We have less of a problem with appeals than the circuit courts do."

On the Web:

You can find links to the entire landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that established your right to act as your own lawyer, Faretta v. California, below. Online sources are:

Related reading:

Why you have no constitutional right to represent yourself on an appeal.