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
THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S VACATION OF DEFENDANT’S FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED; THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE “RELISHING THE INFLICTION OF EXTREME PAIN” ELEMENT (CT APP).
THE POLICE MAY STOP A VEHICLE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE “COMMUNITY CARETAKING” FUNCTION IF THERE IS CAUSE TO BELIEVE SOMEONE IN THE VEHICLE NEEDS ASSISTANCE; THE QUICK OPENING AND CLOSING OF A PASSENGER DOOR WAS NOT ENOUGH (CT APP).
LANDLORD, BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TENANT TO DO RENOVATION WORK, IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR THEREFORE HAD A VALID MECHANIC’S LIEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDLORD (CT APP).
DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MURDER AFTER IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS; HIS FALSE ARREST AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED CONTESTED FACTS REQUIRED A TRIAL (CT APP).
ANSWERING A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (CBA’S) DID NOT PROVIDE RETIREES WITH A VESTED RIGHT SUCH THAT THE HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS AWARDED AT RETIREMENT WOULD NOT BE REDUCED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSEQUENT CBA’S (CT APP).
WHERE A PARTY IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, THE FAMILY COURT ACT TIME-LIMIT FOR OBJECTING TO AN ORDER BEGINS TO RUN WHEN THE ATTORNEY, NOT THE PARTY, IS NOTIFIED OF THE ORDER.
WHERE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IS A BUSINESS ENTITY, HERE BLOOMBERG L.P., AN OWNER OR OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, HERE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, IS NOT AN EMPLOYER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST MICHAEL BLOOMBERG WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).
DEFENDANT, A PAIN MANAGEMENT PHYSICIAN WHO OPERATED A “PILL MILL,” WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER IN THE DEATHS OF TWO PATIENTS WHO DIED OF OPIOID OVERDOSE (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,...