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
NO SPECIAL RULES APPLY TO DISCOVERY OF FACEBOOK POSTS IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, THE SCOPE OF DISCOVERY SHOULD BE BASED UPON RELEVANCE TO THE ACTION BALANCED AGAINST PRIVACY CONCERNS (CT APP).
DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE; EVIDENCE OF CHILD’S MULTIPLE DISCLOSURES OF SEX ABUSE WAS NOT BOLSTERING; DEFENSE COUNSEL ARTICULATED LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR NOT CALLING A MEDICAL EXPERT.
Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Access to a Flat Roof through a Window and a Fall from the Roof Into an Unprotected Air Shaft Were Foreseeable
“Drug Factory” Presumption re: Possession of Drugs to Which the Defendant Is In “Close Proximity” Does Not Apply to A Defendant Who Is Arrested Outside the Building Where the Drugs Are Located and Who Was Not Trying to Escape/Where a Jury Is Instructed It Can Consider Two Different Theories of Possession, and One of Those Theories Should Not Have Been Available for the Jury’s Consideration, the Relevant Convictions Must Be Reversed—the Jury Could Have Based Its Verdict on the Erroneously-Charged Theory
A PATROL OFFICER’S FALLING INTO A HOLE DUG FOR A SEWER LINE WHILE INVESTIGATING, AT NIGHT, A SUSPICIOUS LIGHT FROM A VACANT HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT AN “ACCIDENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (CT APP). ​
CLAIMANT’S SEXUAL ABUSE CONVICTION WAS VACATED AFTER THE ALLEGED VICTIM RECANTED; CLAIMANT BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST THE STATE PURSUANT TO COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 8-B FOR UNJUST CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT; THE COURT OF CLAIMS PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT DID NOT PROVE HIS INNOCENCE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (CT APP).
Intent to Rob Sufficiently Proven by Circumstantial Evidence
Two-Year Time Limit On Bringing Suit Against Insurer for Cost of Replacement of Damaged Property Unreasonable If Replacement Cannot Reasonably Be Done Within Two Years

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 © 2025 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,...