This case focuses upon a criminal defendant whom a state court found mentally competent to stand trial if represented by counsel but not mentally competent to conduct that trial himself. We must decide whether in these circumstances the Constitution forbids a State from insisting that the defendant proceed to trial with counsel, the State thereby denying the defendant the right to represent himself. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 6; Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975). We conclude that the Constitution does not forbid a State so to insist.

Indiana wanted the Court to overrule the Faretta decision, which recognized the right to self-representation. The majority opinion declined to do so, noting that legitimate concerns about unfair trials (a prosecutor taking advantage of a defendant who doesn't understand the rules of evidence or procedure) can be overcome and that the few defendants who choose to have a fool for a client by representing themselves actually do pretty well. Citing a law review article, the Court observed:

of the small number of defendants who chose to proceed pro se—“roughly 0.3% to 0.5%” of the total, state felony defendants in particular “appear to have achieved higher felony acquittal rates than their represented counterparts in that they were less likely to have been convicted of felonies”

Perhaps sincerity overcomes skill and experience.

If you were wondering, the dissenting justices were Scalia and Thomas.