Tate v. Crosby

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that \superficially appealing\ constitutional language may be rendered ambiguous in context of relevant case law in concluding that no right to hybrid representation in criminal case under article first, § 8, of the constitution of Connecticut
• recognizing that “superficially appealing” constitutional language may be rendered ambiguous in context of relevant case law in concluding that no right to hybrid representation in criminal case exists under article first, § 8, of the constitution of Connecticut
• interpreting an identical provision in the Connecticut Constitution, the court cites many cases from other states with similar provisions that rejected the right to hybrid representation and the reading of “and” that defendant here advances
• “voir dire under Connecticut law [is] an integral part of the criminal trial and a critical stage of the proceedings” [internal quotation marks omitted]
• “[W]e decline the defendant’s invitation to . . . construe . . . our state constitution” as permitting hybrid 7 representation.
• while informing defendant of gravity of crime charged, court advised defendant that he was charged with tampering with witness

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).