What Happened in Bridgewaters
Joshua Bridgewaters was charged with murder. He told the trial court multiple times that he wanted to represent himself. Not only did he clearly assert his right to self-representation, he also confirmed that he was waiving his right to counsel voluntarily. Still, the trial judge denied his request, citing concerns about trial delays, the complexity of the case, and uncertainty about whether Bridgewaters really understood what he was doing.
So Bridgewaters went to trial with appointed counsel — against his will — and was convicted. He appealed, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated.
What the Court of Appeals Said
The Utah Court of Appeals agreed with Bridgewaters.
Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Faretta v. California, the appellate court emphasized that the right to self-representation is a fundamental constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment. Once a defendant clearly and voluntarily waives counsel, the court must respect that choice. Judges cannot deny it because they think the defendant will make mistakes or because they believe the decision is unwise.
The trial court in Bridgewaters’s case failed to follow the proper procedure. It never conducted the required “Frampton Colloquy” — a formal series of questions designed to ensure a defendant fully understands the risks of going it alone. Instead, it shut down his request based on speculation and concern. That’s not how the Constitution works.
Because of that, the Court of Appeals reversed Bridgewaters’s conviction and sent the case back for a new trial — one where, if he chooses to waive counsel again and does so knowingly, the court will have to let him proceed on his own.
Why This Case Matters
State v. Bridgewaters isn’t just a technical win for one defendant — it’s a wake-up call for trial courts and a cautionary tale for anyone considering self-representation.
It shows that:
-
The right to represent yourself is real, and courts have to take it seriously.
-
Judges can’t deny that right just because the case is serious or complicated.
-
Proper legal procedure — like conducting a Faretta colloquy — matters.
But it also highlights why having an experienced attorney is almost always the smarter path. Just because the Constitution gives you the right to defend yourself doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so. Even the best judges can’t guide you through complex trial strategy, evidentiary rules, or sentencing risks. That’s your attorney’s job — and if you don’t have one, you’re on your own.
The Takeaway
The justice system isn’t just about guilt or innocence — it’s about process, rights, and fairness. In Bridgewaters, the court failed to follow the process, and the case has been remanded for a new trial. Such a breakdown incurs significant costs in terms of time, money, and emotional strain for everyone involved.
If you’re facing criminal charges, the decision to represent yourself should never be taken lightly. A good defense attorney doesn’t just know the law — they know how to protect your rights, challenge weak evidence, negotiate effectively, and steer your case toward the best possible outcome.
And that’s something no one should risk doing without.