You Deserve A Break Today

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed a conviction due to the trial court’s handling of a self-representation request.

The crime was unusual

In September 2015, defendant and a co-conspirator entered a McDonald’s restaurant, holding what appeared to be guns and wearing masks. Defendant announced that it was a hold up but, when an employee stated defendant’s gun was fake, defendant froze and then laughed and said he was joking. Defendant removed his mask, attempted to hug the manager, and instructed his co-conspirator to return items that had been taken. Two employees recognized defendant as a former employee.

At trial with counsel

The jury found defendant not guilty of robbery but guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery and possession of an imitation firearm for an unlawful purpose. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant’s convictions and sentence. The Court granted certification. 

The trial judge had quizzed the defendant on his legal knowledge but not on his understanding of the consequences of proceeding as his own counsel

Throughout the hearing, defendant did not waver in his desire to represent himself. Although technical knowledge of the law is not required to proceed pro se, defendant was familiar with the criminal justice system and expressed an understanding of admissible evidence. Notably, despite his lack of legal experience, defendant, acting pro se, drafted and filed both the appellate brief and the petition for certification in this matter. It is evident from the record that the trial court, concerned that defendant might make a grave mistake in choosing to represent himself and recognizing the magnitude of the decision to go pro se, took the time and patience to conduct an extensive hearing on defendant’s motion. But the trial court’s concern regarding defendant’s ability to represent himself, “no matter how well-intentioned, cannot override defendant’s exercise of his right to decide to represent himself.”

The quotes are from the court’s headnotes. (Mike Frisch)