State v. Flanagan
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KELLER, J.
In accordance with a remand order from our Supreme Court, the trial court determined that the defendant, Maurice Flanagan, was not entitled to a canvass under Practice Book § 44-3 following the assertion of his right to self-representation at his criminal trial. The defendant appeals from the court’s judgment, arguing that the court improperly concluded that his interest in self-representation was outweighed by the potential disruption of the trial already in progress that would have occurred had he been permitted to represent himself. We affirm the judgment of the trial…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Jerome Williams v. George Bartlett, Howard R. Relin, Monroe County District Attorney, Intervenor-Respondent-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Stuart v. StuartSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- State v. GoreSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. SilvaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016
- Ginsberg & Ginsberg, LLC v. Alexandria Estates, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2014