Criscuolo v. Brandow
- Ona Wang
- 1:23-cv-02406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Criscuolo v. Brandow, Judge Wang denied Criscuolo’s hybrid-defense motion without prejudice while allowing his own submissions under pro se filing rules.
Anthony Criscuolo and his counsel, concerning Criscuolo’s ability to file submissions personally in his habeas proceeding.
What happened
In Criscuolo v. Brandow, Anthony Criscuolo asked to participate in his habeas case alongside his lawyer through what he called a “hybrid defense.” His lawyer did not object to Criscuolo filing submissions himself.
The court explained that there is no right to hybrid representation. It also said that cases recognizing a criminal defendant’s ability to participate personally at trial did not apply because a habeas proceeding is a civil matter, not a criminal trial.
The court denied Criscuolo’s motion without prejudice to his ability to file submissions on his own behalf, as long as he follows the court’s filing rules for people representing themselves. Judge Wang directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Criscuolo v. Brandow · No. 1:23-cv-02406
- Ona Wang
- Apr. 10, 2024
Background
Petitioner Anthony Criscuolo filed a motion for a “hybrid defense” (ECF 37) in his habeas proceeding. The opinion states that Criscuolo’s counsel did not object to Criscuolo filing submissions on his own behalf. The court also noted that Criscuolo had requested an evidentiary hearing, but said it would consider that request while reviewing the petition.
Court’s reasoning
The court relied on its earlier order and the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Hage for the rule that there is no right to hybrid representation. Criscuolo had relied on cases involving a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to participate in the defense at trial, including Faretta v. California and McKaskle v. Wiggins. The court said those cases were not relevant because a habeas proceeding is civil, rather than a criminal trial. It further stated that a right to hybrid defense would not exist in the habeas context, even if the cited cases otherwise supported such a right.
Disposition
The court denied Criscuolo’s motion, without prejudice to his ability to file submissions on his own behalf. Any such submissions must comply with the court’s electronic-filing rules for litigants representing themselves. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF 37. The opinion was issued by Ona T. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.