Under cross-examination in a Cobb County courtroom this week, witness Nick Smith answered questions about being stabbed 16 times when he was 5 years old. But he would not look at the man asking them.
That’s likely because that man, Waseem Daker, is accused of being Smith’s attacker.
In a murder case drawing national attention, Daker, 35, is representing himself against charges he stabbed and strangled Nick’s mother, Karmen Smith, in her Marietta home on Oct. 23, 1995. Prosecutors say that after murdering Smith, Daker attacked Nick when he returned home from school.
Though the right to self-representation has existed since Colonial times, legal experts said that the decision to represent oneself in serious cases, particularly murder, is a perilous undertaking. Especially because of tense courtroom moments like these.
“It would be a disaster waiting to happen,” summed up legendary Georgian defense attorney Bobby Lee Cook. “To put a cross examination in the hands of someone like this would be, in my opinion, 99 times out of a 100, catastrophic to the defendant.”
For a simple reason, explained Dan Summer, a former Hall County prosecutor who now practices criminal defense: “With homicide, jurors are extraordinarily sensitive to what could seem efforts by the defendant to re-victimize the family.”
Earlier in the trial, the slight and bespectacled Daker cross-examined Loretta Spencer Blatz, the woman Daker was previously convicted of stalking in the 1990s. Blatz was Smith’s roommate at the time of her death.
Prosecutors say Daker’s obsession drove him to kill Smith because he believed she interfered with his attempts to contact Blatz. Daker served a decade in prison for stalking Blatz and was released in 2006. It wasn’t until 2009 that hairs collected from Smith’s body were linked to Daker through DNA testing.
He is charged with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, aggravated stalking and burglary.
Both Blatz and Nick Smith, now 20, were visibly emotional on the stand while cross-examined by the Lawrenceville man. Blatz burst into tears during a tense cross-examination. Attorney Steve Sadow said such exchanges can work against the defendant.
“I don’t see anything positive coming out of a defendant representing himself in a situation where he must confront and challenge the victim,” said Sadow, a criminal defense attorney in Atlanta. “I don’t think there’s any question the jurors feel not just uncomfortable, but feel more empathy and sympathy for the victim, and obviously less willingness to keep their minds open in judging the defendant.”
To be clear, experts said, it’s common for defendants to represent themselves in misdemeanor cases, such as traffic violations. And they often win as juries tend to root for the underdog. However, that sympathy rarely works in a defendant’s favor when tried for serious crimes.
In 2008, Harold J. Stewart, a high-school drop-out, successfully defended himself against murder charges in a Prince George’s County, Md., case. The jury exonerated him after just an hour of deliberation.
But more notoriously, Colin Ferguson, dubbed the Long Island Railroad Shooter, fired his defense team, defended himself in his 1995 case. He was found guilty on all six murder charges and is serving a 315-year sentence. Serial murderer Ted Bundy also handled some of his defense in his 1979 trial. He was convicted and executed.
Former Cobb County District Attorney Tom Charron pointed to the local case of Jack Howard Potts, who elected to defend himself against charges that he brutally murdered a Roswell mechanic in 1975. Halfway through the capital murder case, Potts reversed course and rehired a defense attorney, Charron said. Ultimately, Potts was convicted and sentenced to death.
Experts say there are far more complications to self-representation than having a sympathetic jury or overwhelmed defendant. The trial may progress more slowly as the judge must coach the defendant about the law to avoid risk of a mistrial. Prosecutors worry about being perceived as bullies if they are impatient with the defendant.
And often, many experts said, defendants who choose to represent themselves in serious cases are marked with certain character traits.
“They’re very narcissistic,” Summer said. “They are people who may not be mentally fit and have a sense of self-aggrandizement and higher self worth. Jurors detest that.”
Daker was deemed competent to represent himself by Judge Mary Staley in the case that has been held up by motions for years. But Staley ordered the defense attorney who Daker dismissed, Jason Treadaway, to serve as his standby counsel.
While he is acting as an attorney, Daker must follow strict guidelines in the courtroom. He’s prohibited from moving beyond the podium to approach jurors or witnesses. He cannot hand paperwork or exhibits directly to witnesses or jurors. And he is not allowed to handle knives admitted into evidence.
Without question, those familiar with the case say, the former Georgia Tech student is highly intelligent. And according to Charron, Daker is handling his new legal role reasonably well.
“He’s extremely articulate and, as a lay lawyer, is probably one of the better I’ve ever seen,” Charron said.
But even the best and most seasoned attorneys lack objectivity when representing themselves, said Kay Levine, an associate professor of law at Emory University.
“Even in legal folklore there’s a common saying,” Levine said. “A person who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
— Channel 2 Action News contributed to this report.
About the Author
