Due process protections within the United States Constitution may also provide some basis for the policy of pro se leniency.
Nonetheless, the case suggests that there is some foundation in the Fourteenth Amendment for a policy of pro se leniency, and Alaska courts should draw on this principle to extend due process to self-representation.
It ensures a pro se litigant's claim will be heard despite a litigant's potential lack of familiarity with procedure.
However, the Alaska Supreme Court has never expanded McCracken to require a policy of leniency toward pro se litigants under the Alaska Constitution.
Adequate guidance can be accomplished by tailoring procedures to accommodate pro se defendants and by expanding judicial resources to address the needs of pro se defendants.
Additionally, this section presents the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation as an important route to justice and suggests adjusting and expanding procedural resources in order to protect the efficacy of a pro se defense.
Recent research suggests that the practical effect (31) of extending Sixth Amendment protection to pro se criminal defense is valuable.
41) When court-appointed attorneys cannot adequately devote the time and resources necessary to defend criminal defendants satisfactorily, appearing pro se may "be the accused's best possible defense.
ever was--sufficient to protect pro se litigants' access to courts.
the adequacy of complaints disproportionately harms pro se litigants.
unintentionally--to draw inferences that disfavor pro se litigants
serious trouble for pro se litigants, who, even before the plausibility