A Manhattan judge who allowed a burglary defendant to waive his right to counsel failed to make a “searching inquiry” into whether the defendant knew what he was doing, even though he repeatedly urged the man not to proceed without counsel and intimated the risks of going pro se, a state appeals panel has ruled.
Appellate Division, First Department, Justice Rolando Acosta (See Profile) wrote in People v. Cole, 3610/10, which was handed down Thursday, that Manhattan Acting Supreme Court Justice Robert Stolz (See Profile) should have asked the defendant, Marlon Cole, more about his background and education, among other things.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
