risks defense in New Jersey

2026To ensure a defendant's waiver is knowing and intelligent, trial courts must conduct an inquiry to inform defendants seeking to proceed self- represented about: (1) the nature of the charges, statutory defenses, and possible range of punishment; (2) the technical problems associated with self-representation and the risks if the defense is unsuccessful; (3) the necessity that [the] defendant comply with the rules of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence; (4) the fact that the lack of knowledge of the law may impair [the] defendant's ability to defend himself or herself; (5) the impact th

2026The question of whether a defendant made a timely, clear, and unequivocal application to proceed self-represented constitutes a question of law 4 The relevant factors include: (1) the nature of the charges, statutory defenses, and possible range of punishment; (2) the technical problems associated with self-representation and the risks if the defense is unsuccessful; (3) the necessity that defendant comply with the rules of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence; (4) the fact that the lack of knowledge of the law may impair defendant's ability to defend himself or herself; (5) the impact

2026To ensure a defendant's waiver is knowing and intelligent, trial courts must conduct an inquiry to inform defendants seeking to proceed self- represented about: (1) the nature of the charges, statutory defenses, and possible range of punishment; (2) the technical problems associated with self-representation and the risks if the defense is unsuccessful; (3) the necessity that [the] defendant comply with the rules of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence; (4) the fact that the lack of knowledge of the law may impair [the] defendant's ability to defend himself or herself; (5) the impact th

2026The question of whether a defendant made a timely, clear, and unequivocal application to proceed self-represented constitutes a question of law 4 The relevant factors include: (1) the nature of the charges, statutory defenses, and possible range of punishment; (2) the technical problems associated with self-representation and the risks if the defense is unsuccessful; (3) the necessity that defendant comply with the rules of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence; (4) the fact that the lack of knowledge of the law may impair defendant's ability to defend himself or herself; (5) the impact

2020In State v. Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499, 509 (1992), the Court explained a defendant may "exercise the right to self-representation only by first knowingly and intelligently waiving the right to counsel." [W]hen determining whether a waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent, trial courts must inform defendant of: (1) the nature of the charges, statutory defenses, and possible range of punishment; (2) the technical problems associated with self-representation and the risks if the defense is unsuccessful; (3) the necessity that defendant comply with the rules of criminal procedure and the rules of

2020In State v. Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499, 509 (1992), the Court explained a defendant may "exercise the right to self-representation only by first knowingly and intelligently waiving the right to counsel." [W]hen determining whether a waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent, trial courts must inform defendant of: (1) the nature of the charges, statutory defenses, and possible range of punishment; (2) the technical problems associated with self-representation and the risks if the defense is unsuccessful; (3) the necessity that defendant comply with the rules of criminal procedure and the rules of

2020In State v. Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499, 509 (1992), the Court explained a defendant may "exercise the right to self-representation only by first knowingly and intelligently waiving the right to counsel." [W]hen determining whether a waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent, trial courts must inform defendant of: (1) the nature of the charges, statutory defenses, and possible range of punishment; (2) the technical problems associated with self-representation and the risks if the defense is unsuccessful; (3) the necessity that defendant comply with the rules of criminal procedure and the rules of

2020In State v. Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499, 509 (1992), the Court explained a defendant may "exercise the right to self-representation only by first knowingly and intelligently waiving the right to counsel." [W]hen determining whether a waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent, trial courts must inform defendant of: (1) the nature of the charges, statutory defenses, and possible range of punishment; (2) the technical problems associated with self-representation and the risks if the defense is unsuccessful; (3) the necessity that defendant comply with the rules of criminal procedure and the rules of

2021See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 836 (“[The defendant’s] technical legal knowledge . . . was not relevant to an assessment of his knowing exercise of the right to defend himself.”).

2019A-3774-16T3 5 [State v. DuBois, 189 N.J. 454, 468-69 (2007).] The trial court made defendant "aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self- representation, so that the record will establish that 'he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.'" Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975) (quoting Adams v. United States ex rel.

2026The question of whether a defendant made a timely, clear, and unequivocal application to proceed self-represented constitutes a question of law 4 The relevant factors include: (1) the nature of the charges, statutory defenses, and possible range of punishment; (2) the technical problems associated with self-representation and the risks if the defense is unsuccessful; (3) the necessity that defendant comply with the rules of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence; (4) the fact that the lack of knowledge of the law may impair defendant's ability to defend himself or herself; (5) the impact

2021Rather, it requires that the trial court inform a defendant asserting the right to self- representation of: (1) the nature of the charges, statutory defenses, and possible range of punishment; (2) the technical problems associated with self-representation and the risks if the defense is unsuccessful; (3) the necessity that defendant comply with the rules of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence; (4) the fact that the lack of knowledge of the law may impair defendant's ability to defend himself or herself; (5) the impact that the dual role of counsel and defendant may have; (6) the reali

2020State v. Kordower, 229 N.J.

2013Rather, the State argues that there is no federal constitutional right to counsel on collateral review, pointing to the 1987 United States Supreme Court case of Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 , 107 S.Ct. 1990, 1993 , 95 L.Ed.2d 539, 545 (1987).

2013Rather, the State argues that there is no federal constitutional right to counsel on collateral review, pointing to the 1987 United States Supreme Court case of Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 , 107 S.Ct. 1990, 1993 , 95 L.Ed.2d 539, 545 (1987).

2007A judge can make certain that an accused’s professed waiver of counsel is understandingly and wisely made only from a penetrating and comprehensive examination of all the circumstances under which such a plea is tendered. [Ibid, (quoting Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 724 , 68 S.Ct. 316, 323 , 92 L.Ed. 309, 321 (1948) (plurality opinion)).] Thus, following Crisafi , when determining whether a waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent, trial courts must inform defendant of: (1) the nature of the charges, statutory defenses, and possible range of punishment; (2) the technical problems a

2007A judge can make certain that an accused’s professed waiver of counsel is understandingly and wisely made only from a penetrating and comprehensive examination of all the circumstances under which such a plea is tendered. [Ibid, (quoting Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 724 , 68 S.Ct. 316, 323 , 92 L.Ed. 309, 321 (1948) (plurality opinion)).] Thus, following Crisafi , when determining whether a waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent, trial courts must inform defendant of: (1) the nature of the charges, statutory defenses, and possible range of punishment; (2) the technical problems a

2004See McQuillen, supra, 306 N.W. 2d at 791-92 (upholding the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's petition as a proper exercise of discretion, as the trial court had found good cause for ordering plaintiff to submit to a coronary arteriography and plaintiff had willfully refused to submit to same, even though the court did not doubt "plaintiff's sincerity in not wishing to assume the risks of the test" and acknowledged that "less drastic alternatives were available").

2004See McQuillen, supra, 306 N.W. 2d at 791-92 (upholding the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's petition as a proper exercise of discretion, as the trial court had found good cause for ordering plaintiff to submit to a coronary arteriography and plaintiff had willfully refused to submit to same, even though the court did not doubt "plaintiff's sincerity in not wishing to assume the risks of the test" and acknowledged that "less drastic alternatives were available").

1993Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed. 2d 18, 33 (1976).

1993Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed. 2d 18, 33 (1976).