5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. Californiagreen2 sentences2017See Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 , 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) (requiring inquiry by court when defendant seeks to waive counsel and represent himself). 2017See Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 , 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) (requiring inquiry by court when defendant seeks to waive counsel and represent himself). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Mosleygreen1 sentence2025Id., 835–36; see also United States v. Mosley, 607 F.3d 555, 559 (8th Cir. 2010) (District Court properly denied motion for self- representation when defendant’s behavior interfered with pretrial proceedings and delayed trial); United States v. Long, 597 F.3d 720 , 725–27 (5th Cir.) (defen- dant waived his right to self-representation when he repeatedly fired public defenders, was uncooperative 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 0 Conn. 1 ,0 15 State v. Petteway during Faretta hearing, and refused to answer trial judge’s questions), cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1034 , 130 S. Ct. 3524 , 177 L. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael L. Brockgreen1 sentence2025Ed. 2d 1105 (2010); United States v. Brock, 159 F.3d 1077, 1081 (7th Cir. 1998) (District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defen- dant had forfeited his right to self-representation when there was strong indication that he would continue to be disruptive at trial). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Long
green
1 sentence2025Id., 835–36; see also United States v. Mosley, 607 F.3d 555, 559 (8th Cir. 2010) (District Court properly denied motion for self- representation when defendant’s behavior interfered with pretrial proceedings and delayed trial); United States v. Long, 597 F.3d 720 , 725–27 (5th Cir.) (defen- dant waived his right to self-representation when he repeatedly fired public defenders, was uncooperative 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 0 Conn. 1 ,0 15 State v. Petteway during Faretta hearing, and refused to answer trial judge’s questions), cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1034 , 130 S. Ct. 3524 , 177 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Stoyanov v. Mabus
neutral
1 sentence2025Id., 835–36; see also United States v. Mosley, 607 F.3d 555, 559 (8th Cir. 2010) (District Court properly denied motion for self- representation when defendant’s behavior interfered with pretrial proceedings and delayed trial); United States v. Long, 597 F.3d 720 , 725–27 (5th Cir.) (defen- dant waived his right to self-representation when he repeatedly fired public defenders, was uncooperative 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 0 Conn. 1 ,0 15 State v. Petteway during Faretta hearing, and refused to answer trial judge’s questions), cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1034 , 130 S. Ct. 3524 , 177 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Burdette v. Britten
neutral
1 sentence2025Id., 835–36; see also United States v. Mosley, 607 F.3d 555, 559 (8th Cir. 2010) (District Court properly denied motion for self- representation when defendant’s behavior interfered with pretrial proceedings and delayed trial); United States v. Long, 597 F.3d 720 , 725–27 (5th Cir.) (defen- dant waived his right to self-representation when he repeatedly fired public defenders, was uncooperative 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 0 Conn. 1 ,0 15 State v. Petteway during Faretta hearing, and refused to answer trial judge’s questions), cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1034 , 130 S. Ct. 3524 , 177 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Clark v. United States Gypsum Co.
neutral
1 sentence2025Id., 835–36; see also United States v. Mosley, 607 F.3d 555, 559 (8th Cir. 2010) (District Court properly denied motion for self- representation when defendant’s behavior interfered with pretrial proceedings and delayed trial); United States v. Long, 597 F.3d 720 , 725–27 (5th Cir.) (defen- dant waived his right to self-representation when he repeatedly fired public defenders, was uncooperative 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 0 Conn. 1 ,0 15 State v. Petteway during Faretta hearing, and refused to answer trial judge’s questions), cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1034 , 130 S. Ct. 3524 , 177 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Golding
green
2 sentences2021As the state correctly observes, the defendant’s Faretta claim is unpreserved; however, we review the defendant’s claim pursuant to the bypass doctrine enun- ciated in State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015),5 because the record is adequate for review and the defendant’s claim is of a constitutional nature. 2021As the state correctly observes, the defendant’s Faretta claim is unpreserved; however, we review the defendant’s claim pursuant to the bypass doctrine enun- ciated in State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015),5 because the record is adequate for review and the defendant’s claim is of a constitutional nature. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.