Can Appellate Division develop a rule that shifts the burden from the People to a defendant to prove he or she did not abandon property making it subject to state search and seizure?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Can Appellate Division develop a rule that shifts the burden from the People to a defendant to prove he or she did not abandon property making it subject to state search and seizure? 2. Whether a person treated in a public place with . injuries rendering him or her too incoherent and ; : . taken away by police and emergency medical personnel to a hospital via ambulance, without police or medical ; personnel bringing along bags be deemed to have abandoned property and lose standing to challenge its? . search? : 3. Whether evidence of an affirmative act of divestment of an ‘property is required for a showing of abandonment, or ‘ whether the People can meet their burden of proof by presenting a lack of evidence a defendant expressed a continued possessory interest in the property? 4. Whether a court may threaten to gag or remove a defendant from the courtroom for making objections . or nonmeritorious arguments even though defendant was representing himself pro se and not being disruptive during proceedings? ee >) 5. Whether a @efnddnt’ pro se must risk being gagged or removed from courtroom to preserve claim on appeal even after court directs defendant not to say another word? 6. Can a defendant forfeit right to self-representation for making what court deems nonmeritorious argument? 7. Whether a court may accept a pro se defendant's waiver to a presentence report before sentencing without : informing him about the purpose of the interview or failing to determine whether the waiver was knowingly, and intelligently made? ; QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; 8. Whether a sentencing court may waive the crucial : probation interview portion of the report under circumstances not enumerated under CPL 390.20 (4) 2 9. Whether a trial court may regulate the jury selection — ‘ process in a way that taints prospective jurors from coming forward candidly about making known their : difficulty understanding the court on relevant ; matters? . 10. Whether a court may penalize prospective jurors. or threaten to do so for lack of English ‘speaking proficiency by withholding their duty pay and : mandating language courses? ‘ 11. Whether a lower court's substantial departure from jury selection procedure threatening to penalize any ; prospective jurors asserting a lack of language ; proficiency and thus affecting honesty and frankness | ; : of jurors' responses, thereby affecting essential validity of selection process, constitute mode of : proceedings violation?