This chapter examines the discourse around Faretta waivers in capital cases. Under the US law, criminal defendants, even in capital cases, may decline assistance of counsel and represent themselves at trial as long as their choice is made intelligently and knowingly with ‘eyes open’, similar to the legal standard applied in Miranda decisions. Despite their significant impact on trial fairness, the language of Faretta warnings has not received sufficient attention. By analyzing written Faretta warnings and hearings discussing defendants’ decisions in a sample of California capital cases, this chapter shows that, as in Miranda, linguistic complexity and ritualistic approach to checking comprehension may inhibit defendants’ understanding of their legal options. In both waiver contexts, complex closed questions lead to insufficient assurance of laypersons’ true comprehension of legal waivers, obstructing defendants’ access to justice and reducing the reliability of the proceedings. This initial study recommends further interdisciplinary research on the discourse and practices of Faretta warnings to guide improvements and enhance truly informed choices.