US · rules
E.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 49.2
Pro Se Submissions by a Represented Defendant
(a) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, a defendant represented by counsel in a
pending criminal case or in a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 may not file
or submit any pro se letter, motion, or brief. A criminal case is considered pending
if judgment has not yet been entered.
(b) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, if a represented defendant, acting pro se,
files or submits a letter, motion, or brief in violation of this rule, the court must:
(1) on notice to all parties, forward a copy of the document to the defendant’s
attorney of record and file the document under seal and ex parte; and
(2) not afford the document further consideration.
(c) This rule does not apply to a motion to proceed pro se or a submission concerning
the adequacy of counsel’s representation.
(d) If a represented defendant, acting pro se, makes a submission that concerns both
the adequacy of counsel’s representation and other matters, the court may decline
to consider those portions of the submission that concern matters unrelated to the
adequacy of counsel’s representation and file such portions under seal and ex
parte.
For relevant historical context for this local rule, consult the Appendix of Committee Notes.
History
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 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.
Provenance
- Source
- www.nyed.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-18
- Edition
- fed-district-2026-09-18
- Content hash
4875b42727425e611070f50ec913daaaa34a1909cc8a0fc1f9c3a17825382345
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.