Whether a conditional request to proceed pro per is automatically equivocal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Faretta v. California, this Court held that criminal defendants have the right to represent themselves in criminal prosecutions. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Since then, however, courts have split on two key components of Faretta. First, to trigger the right, a defendant’s request must be unequivocal. Courts have split, however, as to what constitutes an equivocal invocation. Some courts have held that any conditional demand for self-representation is equivocal. Others have held that a conditional demand can still be unequivocal. Thus, when a defendant’s motion to proceed pro per is conditioned upon the trial court’s denial of a motion for new counsel (or counsel’s refusal to submit motions, as in this case), courts have reached inconsistent results. Second, to ensure defendants enter self-representation with open eyes, courts are required to advise defendants of the risks and dangers of However, courts have split over how to address the issue when trial courts fail to conduct this advisement. Some courts have concluded the defendant has abandoned the request to proceed pro per if it is not re-urged or refiled, focusing largely upon subsequent events. These cases, however, had strong dissenting views that believed it was improper to find abandonment without a colloquy to determine if the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the invoked right to New Jersey has adopted this latter approach. This case raises the following two issues: 1. Under Faretta, is a conditional request to proceed pro per automatically equivocal? 2. Under Faretta, must a defendant re-urge a request to proceed pro per after the trial court does not rule on the motion or else it is considered abandoned? 2