written jury waiver in New York

2001In any event, the written jury waiver form executed by the defendant and his statements on the record indicate that his waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see, People v McQueen, 52 NY2d 1025 ; People v White, 262 AD2d 590 ; People v Wheeler, 258 AD2d 542 ).

1999In any event, the written jury waiver executed by the defendant and her statements on the record indicate that her waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see, People v McQueen, 52 NY2d 1025; People v Wilson, 258 AD2d 545 ; People v Forbes, 248 AD2d 552 ).

2005Although the record does not reveal precisely what his attorney told him concerning the rights he would be relinquishing and the trial judge did not allocate the defendant, nothing in the record indicates that the defendant was unaware of the consequences of his waiver (see People v Brunson, supra; People v Wheeler, supra).

2001In any event, the written jury waiver form executed by the defendant and his statements on the record indicate that his waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see, People v McQueen, 52 NY2d 1025 ; People v White, 262 AD2d 590 ; People v Wheeler, 258 AD2d 542 ).

2005Although the record does not reveal precisely what his attorney told him concerning the rights he would be relinquishing and the trial judge did not allocate the defendant, nothing in the record indicates that the defendant was unaware of the consequences of his waiver (see People v Brunson, supra; People v Wheeler, supra).

2001In any event, the written jury waiver form executed by the defendant and his statements on the record indicate that his waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see, People v McQueen, 52 NY2d 1025 ; People v White, 262 AD2d 590 ; People v Wheeler, 258 AD2d 542 ).

1999In any event, the written jury waiver executed by the defendant and her statements on the record indicate that her waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made (see, People v McQueen, 52 NY2d 1025; People v Wilson, 258 AD2d 545 ; People v Forbes, 248 AD2d 552 ).

1997The defendant also made a knowing and informed decision to proceed pro se, and his decision to waive his right to counsel was effective (see, People v Vivenzio, 62 NY2d 775 ; People v Miley, 154 AD2d 559 ).

1997The written jury waiver form executed by the defendant, and his statements on the record adequately demonstrate that the defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made (see, People v Livingston, 184 AD2d 529 ).

1997The defendant also made a knowing and informed decision to proceed pro se, and his decision to waive his right to counsel was effective (see, People v Vivenzio, 62 NY2d 775 ; People v Miley, 154 AD2d 559 ).

1993In any event, the record adequately demonstrates that the defendant’s written jury waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily in open court (see, People v Magnano, 158 AD2d 979 , supra; People v Ospina, supra).

1993Defendant herein, having been charged with a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment up to one year, was clearly entitled to a jury trial and therefore, the failure of the record to contain a written jury waiver requires reversal of her conviction (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [b]; Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143 , cert denied 464 US 993 ; People v Zawistowski, 168 AD2d 950 ).

1993In any event, the record adequately demonstrates that the defendant’s written jury waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily in open court (see, People v Magnano, 158 AD2d 979 , supra; People v Ospina, supra).

1993Defendant herein, having been charged with a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment up to one year, was clearly entitled to a jury trial and therefore, the failure of the record to contain a written jury waiver requires reversal of her conviction (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [b]; Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143 , cert denied 464 US 993 ; People v Zawistowski, 168 AD2d 950 ).

1993Inasmuch as the entire written jury instruction included forbidden statutory textual material, the Appellate Division correctly concluded that the trial court committed reversible error in providing that material to the jury over defendant’s objection (see, People v Taylor, 76 NY2d 873 ; People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830 ; People v Owens, 69 NY2d 585 ).

1993Inasmuch as the entire written jury instruction included forbidden statutory textual material, the Appellate Division correctly concluded that the trial court committed reversible error in providing that material to the jury over defendant’s objection (see, People v Taylor, 76 NY2d 873 ; People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830 ; People v Owens, 69 NY2d 585 ).

1993Inasmuch as the entire written jury instruction included forbidden statutory textual material, the Appellate Division correctly concluded that the trial court committed reversible error in providing that material to the jury over defendant’s objection (see, People v Taylor, 76 NY2d 873 ; People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830 ; People v Owens, 69 NY2d 585 ).

1993Finally, in view of the gravity of the offenses and the defendant’s involvement of her infant children in the crimes, we discern no basis for disturbing the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).

1993Defendant herein, having been charged with a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment up to one year, was clearly entitled to a jury trial and therefore, the failure of the record to contain a written jury waiver requires reversal of her conviction (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [b]; Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143 , cert denied 464 US 993 ; People v Zawistowski, 168 AD2d 950 ).