People v. Colon, 88 N.Y.2d 824 (1996)
A defendant’s attorney, not the defendant personally, has the authority to make tactical decisions during a trial, including the selection of jurors.
Summary
Colon was convicted of robbery. During jury selection, after 11 jurors were chosen, the trial court noted that a new panel would be needed for one more juror. Defense counsel withdrew a peremptory challenge to seat the final juror, despite Colon’s desire to empanel a different, previously challenged juror. Colon did not request new counsel. The Appellate Division reversed, finding it was error to seat the juror over Colon’s objection. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that jury selection tactics are the attorney’s domain, not the defendant’s, and the defendant’s ineffective assistance claim lacked merit.
Facts
At the end of the second round of jury selection, eleven jurors had been selected.
The trial court indicated that a new panel would be necessary to select the twelfth juror.
Defense counsel withdrew a peremptory challenge to seat a juror to avoid a new panel.
The defendant wanted a different, previously challenged juror empaneled.
The defense counsel informed the court that the selected juror was acceptable.
The defendant did not request a change of counsel.
Procedural History
Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery.
The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court erred by seating a previously challenged juror over the defendant’s express objection.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in accepting defense counsel’s decision to seat a previously challenged juror over the defendant’s objection.
Whether the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney made a tactical decision regarding jury selection against his wishes.
Holding
No, because the selection of particular jurors falls within the category of tactical decisions entrusted to counsel, and defendants do not retain a personal veto power over counsel’s exercise of professional judgments.
No, because defense counsel’s tactical decision did not create an adverse relationship between attorney and client, and the defendant did not show that his attorney’s representation was undermined.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that while a defendant retains authority over fundamental decisions like pleading guilty, waiving a jury trial, testifying, or appealing, tactical decisions regarding the conduct of the trial are entrusted to the attorney. The Court stated, “With respect to strategic and tactical decisions concerning the conduct of trials, by contrast, defendants are deemed to repose decision-making authority in their lawyers.” Jury selection falls into the latter category.
The Court cited People v. Sprowal, 84 N.Y.2d 113, 119, for the principle that defendants do not have a personal veto over their counsel’s professional judgment in tactical matters. The Court also noted the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Defense Function, Standard 4-5.2[b] (3d ed. 1993). Since Colon’s counsel made a tactical decision, the trial court did not err in accepting it. Furthermore, the Court found that the defendant had waived any argument that the procedure violated CPL 270.25(1) because both Colon and his defense counsel consented to withdrawing peremptory challenges.
Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court found no merit because the attorney’s tactical decision did not create an adverse relationship with the client. The Court cited People v. Petrovich, 87 N.Y.2d 961, 963, stating the defendant failed to show how his attorney’s representation was undermined.