You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE AFTER ELEVEN JURORS...
,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE AFTER ELEVEN JURORS HAD BEEN SELECTED, WAS PROPERLY REJECTED AS UNTIMELY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a three-judge dissent, determined defendant's request to represent himself after 11 jurors had been selected was properly rejected as untimely:

… [P]rior to opening statements, but after 11 jurors were selected and sworn, defendant sought to invoke his right to proceed pro se. As set forth in the seminal case of People v McIntyre, there is a three-prong analysis to determine when a defendant in a criminal case may invoke this right: “(1) the request [must be] unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there [must have] been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant [must] not engage[] in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues” (36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]). This appeal relates to the first prong — specifically, we must consider whether defendant's request was untimely as a matter of law because it was made after commencement of the trial. We hold that, in conformity with the statutory scheme set forth in the Criminal Procedure Law, the jury trial has commenced when jury selection begins. Accordingly, the trial court's determination that defendant's request to proceed pro se, made near the conclusion of jury selection, was untimely was not error. * * *

… [A]a request to represent oneself in a criminal trial is timely where the application to proceed pro se is made before the trial commences. The Criminal Procedure Law defines the commencement of trial as the beginning of jury selection. Where 11 jurors had been selected and sworn as trial jurors before defendant's request to proceed pro se was made, defendant's request was untimely. As a result, there was no legal error in the trial court's determination that the request to represent himself was untimely and in its denial of such request without further inquiry. People v Crespo, 2018 NY Slip Op 06849, CtApp 10-16-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE AFTER ELEVEN JURORS HAD BEEN SELECTED, WAS PROPERLY REJECTED AS UNTIMELY (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE AFTER ELEVEN JURORS HAD BEEN SELECTED, WAS PROPERLY REJECTED AS UNTIMELY (CT APP))/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE AFTER ELEVEN JURORS HAD BEEN SELECTED, WAS PROPERLY REJECTED AS UNTIMELY (CT APP))

You might also like
Penal Law 70.85, Which Allows Resentencing without a Period of Post-Release Supervision to Remedy a Defective Sentence, Is Constitutional
FORMULAIC LANGUAGE INDICATING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A BID WAS SUBJECT TO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND DEPOSIT DID NOT NEGATE THE FORMATION OF A BINDING CONTRACT UPON ACCEPTANCE.
EVEN WHERE THE CLASS HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED, CPLR 908 REQUIRES THE PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS BE GIVEN NOTICE OF THE SETTLEMENT OR DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION (CT APP).
Appellate Review of Conviction Based Upon Circumstantial Evidence Explained
Insufficient Evidence to Warrant Jury Charge on Intoxication Defense
DEFENDANT APPEARED IN COURT WITH A SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO INFORMED THE COURT ANOTHER LEGAL AID LAWYER WAS BEING ASSIGNED TO DEFENDANT’S CASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT “WITHOUT COUNSEL” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPL 30.30; THE ASSOCIATED SPEEDY-TRIAL TIME-PERIOD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE, NOT THE DEFENDANT (CT APP). ​
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN A DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACTION PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (H) ARE LIMITED TO THREE TIMES ACTUAL DAMAGES (CT APP).
THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH “FRAUDULENT ACCOSTING” WAS FACIALLY SUFFICIENT; IT WAS ENOUGH TO ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT SPOKE FIRST TO PERSONS PASSING AROUND HIM ON THE SIDEWALK ASKING FOR DONATIONS FOR THE HOMELESS; THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE DEFENDANT WAS AGGRESSIVE OR PERSISTENT OR TARGETED AN INDIVIDUAL (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

WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEG OF A CLOTHING RACK IN A STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS,...