Pro Se Submissions by a Represented Defendant

2025 COMMITTEE NOTE Local Criminal Rule 49.2 serves several salutary purposes. First, it confirms and codifies the court’s inherent authority to reject most pro se submissions by a represented defendant. See United States v. Hage, 74 F.4th 90, 94 (2d Cir. 2023) (Nardini, J., in Joint Local Rules, S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y. Effective January 2, 2026 chambers) (explaining that allowing pro se submissions by a represented defendant, at least when “the defendant makes no claim that his counsel was not adequately representing him,” is “not only unnecessary; it is also unwise”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, it protects defendants from unwittingly disclosing information that is privileged or making statements that could be used against the defendant in the case. Third, it establishes an efficient default process for dealing with what in some cases may be numerous pro se submissions from a represented defendant, yet provides judges with the flexibility to deviate from the default and handle any such submission as they see fit. Cf. United States v. Tutino, 883 F.2d 1125, 1141 (2d Cir. 1989) (holding that the “decision to grant or deny ‘hybrid representation’ lies solely within the discretion of trial court”). Fourth, by ensuring that any pro se submission is forwarded to counsel for the defendant, it gives counsel the opportunity to take appropriate action, including but not limited to pursuing any matter set forth in the submission or explaining to the defendant why any matter in the submission should not be pursued. Finally, it ensures that any pro se submission by a represented party is made part of the record in case it should it be relevant in later proceedings.