Opinion ID: 2124187
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Colloquy Between the Court, Defendant and Defense Attorney

Text: Defendant made statements to the police that, after finding his wife in a compromising situation with another man, he shot her numerous times and killed her. Defendant also stated that the other man got away. The circumstances of the incident raise the possibility of an affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance which could have lessened the conviction from murder in the second degree to manslaughter (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]). On March 25, 1996, prior to opening statements at trial and outside the presence of the jury, defendant, counsel who was appointed to represent defendant (Mr. Loverro) and the trial court engaged in the following colloquy: MR. LOVERRO: . . . The defendant advised me this morning that he . . . is directing me not to cross-examine any witnesses, not to object to any line of questioning, not to call  to go even further, not to approach the bench, not to participate in any bench conferences or side bars, not to have any defense in this case, not to call any witnesses, not to sum up, not to do anything. He has indicated to me he just wants me to sit here and do nothing . . . It subjects me to two major problems down the road. Number one, if and when this case is ever appealed, if it comes to that, this issue of ineffective assistance of counsel  and I am hoping to allay that by making a record now but still I think the argument might be made any way and any potential disciplinary complaints which would be outrageous since my hands are tied  this is basically a `Catch 22'. Because of those concerns, legitimate concerns and the unreasonable demands that are being made on me, I am going to respectfully ask to be relieved on this matter and have this defendant represent himself. THE DEFENDANT: I didn't ask to represent myself. You can't tell me I have to represent myself. THE COURT: You don't have to represent yourself Mr. Henriquez but I want to confirm that what your attorney is saying is true, that you have instructed him not to make an opening statement, not to cross-examine any witnesses presented by the People, not to call any witnesses yourself and on your behalf and not to make a closing statement; is that  MR. LOVERRO: Not to object. THE COURT: Not to object  MR. LOVERRO:  to any line of questioning and basically, I think the long and short of it is he doesn't want me to do anything. He just wants me to sit here. THE COURT: Is that correct? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: You have to understand what it is that you are waiving by giving him those instructions. THE DEFENDANT: I do. THE COURT: What? THE DEFENDANT: I understand. THE COURT: Tell me what you are waiving. THE DEFENDANT: If I feel I want to do that, it shouldn't be any problem. It shouldn't be no problem. THE COURT: If you understand what you are doing. I just want to be sure. THE DEFENDANT: If I say I understand, there should be no problem. THE COURT: Look, I will determine the sufficiency of the record. THE DEFENDANT: What you are telling me is you can look in my mind and tell if I understand. THE COURT: I will ask you questions. THE DEFENDANT: I don't have to answer. THE COURT: Do you understand you have a right to make an opening statement in this case? THE DEFENDANT: I know I have a right to make an opening statement, to question Officer Palmiotti, Detective McCarthy, comment on the video and written statement but I am refusing to. THE COURT: Do you understand you have a right to testify in your own behalf? THE [DEFENDANT]: Yes. THE COURT: To call witnesses on your own behalf? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: The prosecutor may ask questions that your attorney believes are not proper questions, that are impermissible questions. He has a right to object to such questions. If I agree with him that they are not proper questions, then I would not permit those questions to be put to the witnesses. You have instructed him not to object to any questions; is that right? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. If the DA knows he is not supposed to ask those questions, why is he going to ask them? THE COURT: Here's the problem, okay. Sometimes it requires a ruling from the Court to be clear. Sometimes the questions he may want to ask, your attorney wouldn't mind being asked because it would be  the answer might be helpful to you. Your attorney can decide whether to object or not to object. I determine whether a question is permissible or not. But if your attorney doesn't object, I am not going to have the occasion to make a ruling because you are precluding me from doing that because you are not letting your attorney object. Do you understand that you are giving up your right to object to the questions? THE DEFENDANT: I understand. THE COURT: You know I take it you have discussed your possible defenses in this case with your attorney? THE DEFENDANT: I discussed it. THE COURT: You are not going to be able to present any of those defenses. You are not going to be able to argue through your attorney that any of those defenses are made out? The record then proceeds: THE COURT: You have at the very least, at the very least, the defense of extreme emotional disturbance to the murder charge. It is a defense that based on the videotape I would certainly present to the jury if you asked for it and maybe even if you don't. Later, the trial court, apparently satisfied that defendant understood the trial rights he was waiving through his instruction to defense counsel and seeking to confirm that defendant wanted defense counsel to continue to represent him, had the following exchange with defendant: THE COURT: . . . In this courtroom you have not said you wanted to plead guilty so we are going to trial. If you want to raise no defenses at trial, if you want to ask no questions, if you want to make no opening statement, if you want to make no objections, if you want to have no closing argument made for you, if you want to call no witnesses, that's what will happen. That's what will happen but those are very, very important rights that you are waiving. You have, as I have indicated, defenses that you could raise in this case. You have discussed them with your attorney. Your attorney is anxious to make them on your behalf. THE DEFENDANT: I am not claiming anything. I just want to get it over with. I understand what you are saying. But I know the purpose of what you are saying. I know what you are saying. We can just get this finished with. THE COURT: You don't want any defenses raised on your behalf? You don't want to cross-examine the witnesses; is that right? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: You want Mr. Loverro to represent you. You don't want to represent yourself? THE DEFENDANT: No. THE COURT: But you don't want him to do anything on your behalf? THE DEFENDANT: No.