If the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client, then Baltimore County has more than its share of those who lack common sense.
Almost every day, do-it-yourself lawyers step in front of judges and juries to gamble with their freedom, their money or both. Prosecutors, defenders and judges say it's a quick way to come out a big loser.
Kenneth Edward Bundley learned that the hard way. Early this month, Bundley, 29, turned down the offer of a plea bargain and defended himself before a Circuit Court jury on charges that he stole a Jeep Cherokee while the owner was loading groceries into the car in a Metro Food Market parking lot.
Bundley's defense was simple: "I didn't do it," he told jurors in closing arguments. They found him guilty in less than 10 minutes.
"I didn't think that it was going to be this hard. I would have been better off with an attorney," Bundley said in an interview at the Maryland Reception Diagnostic Classification Center, where he's awaiting assignment to the prison that will be his home for the next seven years.
Bundley did start off with a court-appointed attorney, but he fired her because she wanted him to take the plea bargain. With no prepared defense, Bundley -- who has a General Equivalency Diploma and one year of community college -- squared off against against veteran prosecutor Steven I. Kroll.
He was no match.
Bundley fumbled his way through jury selection, barely laid a glove on prosecution witnesses in cross-examination and called no witnesses to support his assertion that he was home watching television when the Cherokee was snatched.
"I was scared to death the whole time, sweating and everything," he said. "I didn't know what I could say and what I couldn't say, and having to speak to these people knowing that my life was on the line and me not knowing the law."
Bundley's problems were typical. In fact, Mr. Kroll said there are two things at which amateurs fail miserably: "One, they do not know how to cross-examine witnesses. Two, they do not know how to summarize the evidence."
Bundley wants a second chance, this time with an attorney. But Maryland law gives no second chances to those take their chances without a lawyer.
As recently as 1993, the Court of Special Appeals ruled: "If an uneven 'playing field' results when parties represent themselves, it is not because the rules are applied differently, but that one side has available the education, training and experience of a lawyer who functions in the legal arena to assist and represent his client to the fullest extent of the law."
But the law does take the issue seriously. It allows people who want to represent themselves time to reconsider. Judges must inform defendants that they would be better off with an attorney. If someone needs time to get a lawyer and there has been no previous postponement, judges are required to offer one.
Attorneys say the problem often arises when defendants have frittered away their first postponement and then expect to get another so they can find an attorney. Judges frequently have little sympathy and tell the defendant to get on with the trial. And prosecutors, already annoyed by the delay, are ready to go for the jugular.
"Frankly, it is because I think these people are just lazy or overconfident. A lot of these people have been in court before. They think they can do it by themselves," said District Court Prosecutor Daniel Trimble.
"I am an experienced, trained, educated prosecutor. Certainly they are at a disadvantage. If it is a trial, they are at a great disadvantage."
John Tracy, also a District Court prosecutor, said do-it-yourselfers often leave themselves open to tactics that a defense attorney would never allow. And Mr. Tracy has no qualms about taking everything the defendant will give him.
"I will introduce hearsay evidence," said Mr. Tracy, referring to secondhand testimony. "It is only inadmissible if it is objected to."
Most lawyers know when to object. Most lay people don't, he said.
Witness trouble
Some self-representers have trouble with their own witnesses. Gerald Cifarelli's District Court debut turned into a disaster in September when he put a police officer on the stand in an effort to prove that his wife was a bigamist.
He was shocked when the officer said she'd checked the records and found that it was Mr. Cifarelli who was the bigamist. He had not completed divorce proceedings against Wife No. 1 before marrying Wife No. 2.
Even prosecutors have a few second thoughts about defendants who want to admit their guilt.
"When someone comes up to me pleading guilty, my first impression is that it is a stupid thing to do," District Court Prosecutor Lisa Fox-Dever said. "If you had an attorney, they would tell you when to be quiet and when to talk."
Frank VonRinteln should have taken that advice in December. Defending himself against wife-beating charges, he helped District Court Prosecutor Marsha Stephens win her case when he volunteered that he had beaten his wife before. She would have never been allowed to ask him that question.
Mr. VonRinteln was found guilty and sentenced to three years of domestic violence and alcohol counseling.
Bobby Lee Hassell learned about the dangers of a slip of the tongue in September, when he represented himself on charges of harassing his estranged wife with threatening phone calls.
Mrs. Hassell claimed he was screaming at her when he called. He said he was calm and was only calling to discuss their daughter. But Mr. Hassell's story fell apart when he testified in narrative, "I called back to argue . . . oh . . . uh . . . to talk to her."
District Judge Charles Foos fined Mr. Hassell $200 and put him on probation for a year.
Importance of mitigation
Mrs. Fox-Dever said self-representers also underestimate the importance of what happens after the judge reaches a guilty verdict.
"The most important thing an attorney says is not during trial, but mitigation," she said of the opportunity defendants get to explain why they deserve leniency.
"People will continue to talk about the incident and say that they are not guilty . . . . They often do not mention the favorable things like if they were a Boy Scout for 10 years or anything like that."
Not everyone views those who represent themselves with disdain. District Judge Patricia Pytash said a person who appears without an attorney in a small case is a welcome sight.
"On traffic days, when you have someone who lays his cards on the table and they say, 'Judge, I did a dumb thing,' that is refreshing."
Not everyone fares badly without an attorney.
Wesley Mack, a former maintenance man at United Parcel Service, had to be corrected about procedure several times by District Judge Alexander Wright Jr. in November, but he won acquittal.
He was accused by a UPS security agent of hiding five pairs of women's jeans, videotapes and a camera box in a warehouse container beneath trash in hopes of stealing the goods later.
When he cross-examined the agent, Mr. Mack tried to argue and give his own testimony. Judge Wright chastised him when he called the witness a liar.
But Mr. Mack ultimately managed to ask the right question: "Did you see me put the packages in there?"
The agent answered no.
Prosecutor Kroll said only 2 percent of the defendants he sees represent themselves well.
"It comes from their heart and it just happens that way," he said. But for the other 98 percent, "You're always better off with a lawyer."