State v. Vlasak, 733 A.2d 232 (Conn. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Vlasak, 733 A.2d 232 (Conn. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2001 · …defendant cannot now complain that he was deprived of his constitutional rights because his trial tactic failed ⚠ not in text
12 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Berube (conn, 2001-07-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Berube (2×)
Conn. · 2001 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
defendant cannot now complain that he was deprived of his constitutional rights because his trial tactic failed
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Town of Groton v. Lewis (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Such a litigant is bound by the same rules of evidence and procedure as those qualified to practice law.” (Citation omitted.) Cersosimo v. Cersosimo, 188 Conn. 385, 394 , 449 A.2d 1026 (1982); see also Maloney v. Maloney, 17 Conn. App. 829, 830 , 553 A.2d 1169 (1989) (per curiam). “ ‘Although we allow pro se litigants some latitude, the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.’ Blakeney v. Commissioner of Correction, 47 Conn. App. 568, 586 , 706 A.2d 989 , cert. denied, 244 Conn. 913 , 713 A.2d 830 (…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
JERRY W. VLASAK
SC 16117.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 9, 1999.
733 A.2d 232
Norman A. Pattis, in support of the petition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 67%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Connecticut (2)

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 52 Conn. App. 310 (AC 17222), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Whether the Appellate Court properly held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the pro se defendant from testifying about a lawsuit filed against him by a pivotal witness for the state?”