Court Opinion

ID: 9750839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:36:56.625426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:23.818373
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, C. J. (retired),
dissenting.
I concur in the dissenting opinion of Justice Schreiber. I agree with him that there existed, in fact and in law, a clear waiver of the Sixth Amendment constitutional right which defendant now advances to justify the new trial sought by him and approved by the majority.
The defendant’s pretense that private counsel, at some later date, might be retained for him by a relative, was patently absurd and entirely unsubstantiated by the record. In short *390words, his tactic has successfully arrogated the management of the criminal calendar and, in that sense, the “integrity of the process” of the administration of justice referred to in Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 468, 91 S.Ct. 499, 506, 27 L.Ed.2d 532, 541 (1971) (Burger, C. J., concurring); State v. Wiggins, 158 N.J.Super. 27, 32 (App.Div.1978). The “integrity of [that] process,” 400 U.S. at 468, 91 S.Ct. at 506, 27 L.Ed.2d at 541, has thus been subverted to the disadvantage of both the need in the public interest for fair and speedy trial, and the continuing recognition by New Jersey courts (in which they have never been laggard) of constitutional rights on the part of those accused in whose behalf they are honestly and sensibly advanced.
*389The majority emphasizes that any lawyer would have exercised one or more peremptory challenges. Perhaps, but that position is irrelevant. Defendant in his pro se capacity had not exercised any peremptory challenges. Whether his technique was simply a refusal to participate or due to ineptness (having been given due warning), his waiver was effective. See United States v. Rowe, 565 F.2d 635, 637 (10 Cir. 1977), wherein the court stated that defendant cannot argue on appeal that pro se representation was ineffective assistance.
*390With all respect to the views of the majority, the result leaves me with the uneasy feeling that an adroit and courtwise defendant, in a serious case of alleged criminal violence, has been successful in hoodwinking both trial and appellate courts, to the disadvantage of the true administration of justice.
For affirmance—Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD and HANDLER—4.
For reversal and remandment—Chief Justice HUGHES and Justices MOUNTAIN and SCHREIBER—3.