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'2>
search?

3. Whether evidence of an affirmative act of divestment of
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?

5. Whether a defendant 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?

8. Whether a sentencing court may waive the crucial probation interview portion of the report under
circumstances not enumerated under CPL 390.20 (4) ?

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?

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?