Unrequited Love And The New York Court Of Appeals

The New York Court of Appeals denied relief to a convicted defendant who had expressed a desire to proceed pro se which was ignored by the trial judge.

Justice Rivera was not having it

“I would love to go pro se.”

That’s exactly what defendant said in open court. The import of these seven words is obvious: defendant wanted to represent himself. Under People v McIntyre (36 NY2d 10 [1974]), this clear and unequivocal statement required an inquiry by the court into defendant’s request. Here, that inquiry could have been as brief as asking defendant a single question confirming that he meant what he said. Contrary to the majority’s suggestion, defendant, unlike the court, did not need to say or do anything else (see majority op at 2 n). Once defendant invoked his constitutional right to self-representation, it was for the court to inquire whether his decision was made knowingly and intelligently (id. at 17). The court’s failure to do so constitutes reversible error (People v Smith, 68 NY2d 737, 738-739 [1986]). Therefore, I dissent and would reverse and order a new trial. And in case there is any doubt as to my intent, let me repeat: I dissent, unequivocally and without hesitation.

Parting shot

Although the decision below strays far afield from McIntyre, that error appears to be an aberration, as the courts of this state have had little difficulty applying that case’s central holding. In doing so, they have safeguarded “one of the most cherished ideals of our culture” (McIntyre, 36 NY2d at 14). The reasoning of McIntyre has stood the test of time. The majority’s memorandum cannot.

(Mike Frisch)