People v. Jackson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*694Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not deprive him of his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself by denying his initial request to proceed pro se at the suppression hearing. “A defendant’s request to represent himself ‘must be invoked clearly and unequivocally’ ” (People v Gillian, 8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006], quoting People v LaValle, 3 NY3d 88, 106 [2004]). Here, the defendant’s initial request to proceed pro se was not unequivocal because it was made in the context of expressing dissatisfaction with counsel’s failure to highlight certain evidence at the suppression…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- People v. MaxwellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- People v. EvansNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
- People v. FreemanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- People v. EkwegbaluAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. EvansAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. ThomasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. EstedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. LassiterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.