You are here: / / TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT INQUIRE INTO DEFENDANT’S SERIOUS REQUEST FOR...

TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT INQUIRE INTO DEFENDANT’S SERIOUS REQUEST FOR ANOTHER ATTORNEY, CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the trial judge did not conduct a sufficient inquiry into defendant’s request for another attorney:

​

We agree with defendant that the trial court failed to adequately inquire into his “seemingly serious request[]” to substitute counsel … . Defendant’s request was supported by “specific factual allegations of ‘serious complaints about counsel'” … , and a “minimal inquiry” into “the nature of the disagreement or its potential for resolution” was warranted … . Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct such an inquiry. People v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 08165, CtApp 11-21-17

Similar issue and result in People v Dodson, 2017 NY Slip Op 08171, CtApp 11-21-17

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT INQUIRE INTO DEFENDANT’S SERIOUS REQUEST FOR ANOTHER ATTORNEY, CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW,  TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT INQUIRE INTO DEFENDANT’S SERIOUS REQUEST FOR ANOTHER ATTORNEY, CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP))

You might also like
Denial of Petitioner’s Application for Employment as a School-Bus Driver, Based Upon His Criminal Record, Was Not Arbitrary and Capricious Despite Petitioner’s Good Employment Record and His Obtaining a Certificate of Relief from Civil Disabilities
THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS BASED ON A COMPUTER-GENERATED “SIMILARITY HIT;” AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THE BASIS OF THE “SIMILARITY HIT” WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THIS PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S FACIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE CONCEALED CARRY STATUTE AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF HIS INDICTMENT (A PROVISION OF THE STATUTE WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE US SUPREME COURT JUST PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S INDICTMENT) SURVIVED HIS WAIVER OF APPEAL; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NEVER APPLIED FOR A FIREMARM LICENSE, HE HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE STATUTE BASED ON HIS CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; THE CHALLENGED PORTION OF THE STATUTE IS SEVERABLE FROM THE OTHER PROVISIONS; DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION RENDERED THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER ALL CONCEIVABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FACIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY (CT APP).
THE JURY NOTE REQUESTED THE “DEFINITIONS” OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES; DEFENSE COUNSEL ASKED THE JUDGE TO ALSO REREAD THE JUSTIFICATION INSTRUCTION IN THIS MURDER CASE; THE JUDGE REFUSED; BECAUSE THE JURY’S NOTE WAS SPECIFIC AND DID NOT REQUEST THE JUSTIFICATION INSTRUCTION, THE JUDGE PROPERLY DENIED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST (CT APP).
COURT RECORDS RELATED TO PROCEEDINGS FOR THE COMMITMENT AND RETENTION OF DANGEROUS MENTALLY ILL ACQUITTEES ARE NOT CLINICAL RECORDS AND THEREFORE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE AUTOMATIC SEALING REQUIREMENT IN THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CT APP).
THE POLICE-OFFICER WITNESS, WHO DID TESTIFY AT TRIAL, DID NOT REMEMBER THE INCIDENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED AS PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED BECAUSE THE WITNESS TESTIFIED (CT APP).
IF QUESTIONING A DEFENDANT ABOUT WHERE HE/SHE LIVES SERVES AN ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSE AND IS NOT A DISGUISED ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN INCRIMINATING INFORMATION, DEFENDANT’S ANSWER IS SUBJECT TO THE PEDIGREE EXCEPTION TO THE MIRANDA REQUIREMENT; DNA EVIDENCE GATHERED BY THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED WITHOUT HOLDING A FRYE HEARING (CT APP).
VIOLATION OF PROBATION PETITION FACIALLY INSUFFICIENT, TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS NOT STATED (CT APP).

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

WHOLLY ARBITRARY DECISION BY COOPERATIVE BOARD TO RESCIND PLAINTIFF’S... 2ND DEPT USED THE WRONG STANDARD FOR APPLYING THE CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE EXEMPTION...