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
A FRYE HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE LOW COPY NUMBER (LCN) DNA EVIDENCE AND THE EFFICACY OF A FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST); THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (CT APP).
IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY CONCEDED GUILT AND URGED JURY NULLIFICATION ON THE BURGLARY CHARGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BREAK-IN AND THE STOLEN ITEMS WERE NOT WORTH MUCH, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT DEFENDANT RECEIVED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (CT APP).
TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S INTERPRETATION OF A WAGE ORDER WHICH ALLOWED 24-HOUR LIVE-IN HOME HEALTH CARE AIDES TO BE PAID FOR 13 HOURS WAS NOT IRRATIONAL OR UNREASONABLE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER GROUNDS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (CT APP).
Enhanced Sentencing for Second Child Sexual Assault Felony Offenders Is Required by Penal Law 70.07; Language in Criminal Procedure Law 400.19 Can Not Be Interpreted to Mean the People Can Decide Not to Seek the Enhanced Sentence
In an Action Stemming from the Purchase of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, the Breach of Defendant’s Representations and Warranties Concerning the Borrowers’ Incomes, Occupancy Status and Debt Obligations Occurred on the Date the Contract Was Executed (Starting the Six-Year Statute of Limitations at that Point)—Defendant’s Obligation to Cure or Repurchase Did Not Constitute a Second Contract—Defendant’s Refusal to Cure or Repurchase, Therefore, Did Not Start the Running of Another Six-Year Limitations Period
DEFENDANT WAS NOT UNDULY PREJUDICED BY CODEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S SUMMATION-ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT WAS A SHOOTER AND THE CODEFENDANT WAS NOT; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT POINT TO THAT CONCLUSION AND THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED THAT SUMMATIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE (CT APP).
County Could Not Shift Obligation to Pay Property Tax Refunds to Taxing Districts

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,...