State v. Jordan
44 A.3d 794
Conn.2012Background
- Jordan was charged in March 2005 with reckless endangerment in the first degree for a fatal I-95 crash that killed Jennifer Diaz.
- He was initially represented by Abbamonte; he moved to dismiss counsel and, after a canvass, was permitted to represent himself with Schipul as standby counsel.
- He represented himself for about seven months before Schipul was appointed as standby and then full counsel in May 2006.
- In December 2006 he moved for a speedy trial; on January 23, 2007 he filed a pro se motion to dismiss counsel seeking self-representation or new counsel; the court denied the motion without canvassing him for self-representation.
- Trial occurred Feb–Mar 2007, resulting in a guilty verdict on reckless endangerment in the first degree; the Appellate Court affirmed, then the Supreme Court granted certification on two issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Jordan clearly invoke the right to self-representation? | Jordan clearly asserted self-representation in writing and orally. | The request was a clear, unequivocal invocation of self-representation obligating a § 44-3 canvass. | Yes; invocation was clear and unequivocal, triggering a canvass requirement. |
| Did the trial court improperly restrict cross-examination of Ringor? | Cross-examination should reveal bias and motive; limits were improper. | Restrictions were proper under evidentiary rules and relevance. | No; the court properly restricted cross-examination, with appropriate balancing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) ( Sixth Amendment right to self-representation.)
- State v. Flanagan, 293 Conn. 406 (Conn. 2009) ( canvass requirement when self-representation is properly invoked.)
- Sapienza v. Vincent, 534 F.2d 1007 (2d Cir.1976) (early standards on self-representation invocation.)
- Johnstone v. Kelly, 808 F.2d 214 (2d Cir.1986) (unequivocal choice between counsel and self-representation required.)
- United States v. Hernandez, 203 F.3d 614 (9th Cir.2000) (equivocal requests treated with special scrutiny.)
- Williams v. Bartlett, 44 F.3d 95 (2d Cir.1994) (conditional requests do not necessarily negate unequivocal self-representation requests.)
- State v. Drakeford, 202 Conn. 75 (Conn. 1987) (standards for substitution of counsel and self-representation.)
- State v. Connor, 292 Conn. 483 (Conn. 2009) (premise that self-representation requires knowing and intelligent waiver.)