You are here: / / RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTLY QUESTIONED DEFENDANT...
,

RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTLY QUESTIONED DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HE KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO TESTIFY.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the facts presented the rare scenario that required the court’s inquiry into whether defendant waived his right to testify. After proof had closed, the defendant made it clear that he wanted to testify and that he and his attorney did not agree on the question:

​

Defendant’s request to testify, coupled with his statements that he and defense counsel had disagreed on the issue, gave rise to one of those rare circumstances in which County Court was required to engage in a direct colloquy with defendant so as to discern whether he had been advised that the decision to testify ultimately belonged to him and whether, at the time that the defense rested, defendant’s failure to testify had been a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of that right … . However, County Court failed to engage in the required inquiry so as to ensure that defendant’s constitutional right to testify was protected. While County Court asked whether there was an application to reopen the proof and indicated that it would consider such a request, it directed that question only to defense counsel, even in the face of defendant’s repeated statements that he and defense counsel had differing opinions on the matter. By directing its question solely to defense counsel, County Court demonstrated an apparent misapprehension of longstanding precedent holding that a represented defendant has final decision-making authority over the decision to testify … . People v Morgan, 2017 NY Slip Op 02692, 3rd Dept 4-6-17

CRIMINAL LAW (RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTLY QUESTIONED DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HE KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO TESTIFY)/TESTIFY, RIGHT TO (CRIMINAL LAW, RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTLY QUESTIONED DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HE KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO TESTIFY)

You might also like
DOUBLE HEARSAY SUPPORTED THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION TO HAVE A REPORT MAINTAINED BY THE CENTRAL REGISTRY OF CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT AMENDED TO BE UNFOUNDED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT).
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUESTS WAS MOOT, PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED AND WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS AND FEES, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, FATHER’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PETITION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE MOTHER DID NOT REQUEST THAT RELIEF; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT CONSIDERED AND DENIED MOTHER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant, Who Worked from Her Home Pursuant to a Consulting Agreement, Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor
THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT ANY INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD HAD THE CAPACITY TO TESTIFY; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE PLANS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A HOSPITAL WERE NOT YET FINALIZED, IT WAS CLEAR THAT SUCH AN EXPANSION WAS AN ANTICIPATED RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE; THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) PROHIBITION OF “SEGMENTATION” REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPANSION AS PART OF THE “HARD LOOK” AT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ZONING CHANGE (THIRD DEPT).
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE CORRECT STANDARD TO APPLY TO THE CANINE SNIFF OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON WAS REASONABLE SUSPICION, NOT PROBABLE CAUSE; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).
District Attorney’s Former Status as a Judge Hearing Cases Involving the Department of Social Services Did Not Preclude the District Attorney from Issuing Subpoenas for Department Records

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AFTER TERMINATION OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE ON INVOICES... COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO AMEND A DEFECTIVE...