The Nevada Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of Isaiha Duckket, who was found guilty of second-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon, attempted murder with use of a deadly weapon, robbery with use of a deadly weapon, and grand larceny auto following a jury trial in Clark County.
Duckket, who chose to represent himself during his criminal trial, appealed his conviction arguing that he was not competent to represent himself due to mental illness. The case highlights the complex intersection of defendants' constitutional right to self-representation and concerns about mental competency in criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court of Nevada, sitting en banc, issued its opinion on Feb. 5, 2026, in case No. 87853. Justice Bell wrote the court's opinion affirming the lower court's decision. The original trial took place in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County under Judge Carli Lynn Kierny.
In addressing Duckket's mental competency claim, the court acknowledged the legal standard that courts may deny requests from defendants to represent themselves when they are competent to stand trial but unable to conduct trial proceedings independently due to mental illness symptoms that impair their ability to manage the proceedings effectively.
However, the court determined that based on the record in this case, the district court did not err in finding Duckket competent to represent himself. The opinion noted that while defendants have a constitutional right to self-representation, this right is not absolute when mental illness interferes with the ability to conduct a meaningful defense.
The case attracted attention from legal advocacy groups, with Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice filing an amicus curiae brief. The organization was represented by Stacy M. Newman of Las Vegas and Katheryn Hickman, Alternate Public Defender for Washoe County. The involvement of this criminal justice advocacy group suggests the case raised broader questions about the standards for determining competency for self-representation in serious criminal cases.
Duckket was represented on appeal by Winters Spelman PLLC and attorney S. Alex Spelman of Las Vegas. The state was represented by Attorney General Aaron D. Ford from Carson City, along with Clark County District Attorney Steven B. Wolfson and Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Mishler.
The charges against Duckket were serious, involving violent crimes with weapon enhancements. Second-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon carries substantial penalties under Nevada law, as do the accompanying charges of attempted murder, robbery, and grand larceny auto, all with deadly weapon enhancements.
The court's decision reinforces the principle that while defendants have a fundamental right to represent themselves in criminal proceedings, this right must be balanced against the need to ensure that defendants can meaningfully participate in their own defense. The standard requires that defendants be both competent to stand trial and able to conduct trial proceedings without the assistance of counsel.
Beyond his mental competency claim, Duckket raised other arguments on appeal, but the court found that none of these additional assertions warranted reversal of his conviction. The court's brief opinion suggests that these other claims lacked merit or were not sufficiently developed to require extensive analysis.
The case reflects ongoing challenges in the criminal justice system regarding how courts should handle defendants who wish to represent themselves while dealing with mental health issues. Courts must carefully balance constitutional rights with practical concerns about ensuring fair proceedings and meaningful representation.
The Nevada Supreme Court's decision follows established precedent that allows courts to deny self-representation requests when mental illness significantly impairs a defendant's ability to conduct their defense, even if they are competent to stand trial. This distinction recognizes that competency to stand trial and competency for self-representation involve different legal standards and practical considerations.
The affirmation of Duckket's conviction concludes his direct appeal process, though he may still have options for post-conviction relief depending on the specific circumstances of his case and any potential constitutional violations that may have occurred during his trial or sentencing.
The case serves as a reminder of the complex legal and practical issues that arise when defendants with potential mental health concerns choose to represent themselves in serious criminal cases, particularly those involving violent crimes with substantial penalties.