New York’s High Court Reverses Conviction Due to Judge’s Failure to Make Pro Se Inquiry
During pre-trial proceedings, Mr. Lewis made a request to proceed pro se. He stated that he wanted to represent himself and confirmed that decision when the court specifically asked if that was what he wanted to do. Nevertheless, the trial court denied the request without the requisite inquiry. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.
In finding that Mr. Lewis was denied his right to self-representation, the Court determined that the request was unequivocal, since he twice requested to represent himself and then responded “yes” when asked by the judge if he would represent himself at trial. This “standalone request to proceed pro se” necessitated an inquiry by the trial judge to ensure that his waiver of counsel was made competently, intelligently, and voluntarily. The fact that Mr. Lewis had previously made other unrelated pro se motions and complained about counsel at various stages of the case was unrelated to the court’s obligation to inquire.
Furthermore, that the unequivocal request to proceed pro se followed a denied request for new counsel did not mean the request was “inauthentic.” And because there is no authority to impose a requirement for repeated invocations of the right to self-representation, the trial judge was required to consider the request when made. Since the trial judge failed to made the necessary inquiry, the Court ruled that Mr. Lewis was entitled to a new trial.
David Fitzmaurice represented Mr. Lewis