You are here: / / THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT THE REQUIRED “SEARCHING INQUIRY”...
, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT THE REQUIRED “SEARCHING INQUIRY” BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO PROCEED PRO SE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, in a memorandum decision which did not describe the facts, determined the judge did not conduct a “searching inquiry” before allowing defendant to proceed pro se:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and a new trial ordered. In contrast to People v Duarte (37 NY3d 1218 [2022]), the trial court here recognized defendant as having unequivocally requested to proceed pro se. However, the court failed to conduct the required “‘searching inquiry’ to ensure that the defendant’s waiver [of the right to counsel] is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” (People v Silburn, 31 NY3d 144, 150 [2018] … ). People v Holmes, 2023 NY Slip Op 03186, CtApp 6-13-23

Practice Point: When a defendant requests to go ahead with a trial without an attorney, the judge must conduct a “searching inquiry” to determine if the waiver of the right to counsel is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The failure to do so requires and new trial.

 

You might also like
Whether Arresting Officers Had Reasonable Suspicion to Stop and Detain Is a Mixed Question of Law and Fact Which Cannot Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals
HEARSAY STATEMENT BY AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS A STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST.
An Unconditional Guaranty of Payment of a Another’s Obligations Is Enforceable by Summary Judgment In Lieu of a Complaint In New York, Even In the Face of an Allegation the Underlying Judgment Was the Result of Collusion and Fraud
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (CT APP).
THE COURT OF APPEALS MAJORITY HELD THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND THE DISSENT WENT TOO FAR BY INTERPRETING A SHORT PHRASE WITH GRAMMATICAL AND SPELLING ERRORS TO HAVE AMENDED THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT, WHICH WAS UNAMBIGUOUS (CT APP).
EXPUNGEMENT NOT AVAILABLE FOR CHILD NEGLECT CASE REFERRED TO THE FAMILY ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TRACK (FAR TRACK).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE SPANISH COMPANIES OPERATING IN SPAIN, DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO NEW YORK’S LONG-ARM JURISDICTION.
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.

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

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF DEFENDANT... DEFENDANT WAS WEARING A STUN BELT DURING THE TRIAL WITHOUT THE JUDGE’S...