People v. Rodriguez, 95 N.Y.2d 497 (2000)
A criminal defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation; the decision to entertain a pro se motion from a defendant represented by counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Summary
Rodriguez was convicted of robbery. He filed pro se speedy trial motions while represented by counsel, which the trial court denied after defense counsel declined to adopt them. He also challenged a lineup identification. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court acted within its discretion in declining to hear the pro se motions, as there is no right to hybrid representation. However, the Court reversed the conviction due to the erroneous admission of a tainted lineup identification, which violated Rodriguez’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The case was remitted for a new trial and a hearing on the independent source of the victim’s in-court identification.
Facts
Eva Lopez was robbed at gunpoint in her apartment building by a man she recognized from outside the building. Seven months later, Lopez identified Rodriguez in a lineup. Rodriguez was incarcerated on an unrelated conviction at the time of the lineup, which was conducted without counsel present or advisement of his right to counsel pursuant to a court order obtained ex parte.
Procedural History
Prior to trial, Rodriguez filed two pro se motions seeking dismissal of the indictment for speedy trial violations. He also moved pro se to relieve his counsel. The trial court adjourned the matter to assign new counsel. Represented by new counsel, Rodriguez was convicted of robbery in the first degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court properly denied the pro se motions and that the lineup error was harmless. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Issue(s)
1. Whether a trial court is required to consider pro se speedy trial motions submitted by a defendant represented by counsel.
2. Whether the admission of the lineup identification, conducted without counsel, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holding
1. No, because a criminal defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation, and the decision to entertain such motions lies within the discretion of the trial court.
2. No, because the admission of the tainted lineup was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given that this was a single eyewitness case and there was no independent source for the identification or any other corroborating evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment and the State Constitution provide the right to counsel or self-representation, but not both. Allowing hybrid representation is within the trial court’s discretion to ensure orderly proceedings. By accepting counsel, a defendant assigns control of the case to the attorney. While inquiring into defense counsel’s awareness of pro se motions may be a better practice, it is not constitutionally required. The Court emphasized that “[b]y accepting counseled representation, a defendant assigns control of much of the case to the lawyer, who, by reason of training and experience, is entrusted with sifting out weak arguments, charting strategy and making day-to-day decisions over the course of the proceedings.”
Regarding the lineup, the Court acknowledged the People’s concession that conducting the court-ordered lineup without counsel violated Rodriguez’s Sixth Amendment rights. The Court found this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, stating: “In the absence of an independent source for the identification or any other corroborating evidence, we cannot conclude that there was no reasonable possibility that the tainted lineup contributed to the verdict.” Therefore, a new trial was required, preceded by a hearing to determine the independent source of the in-court identification.