54 Cited authorities

Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,552 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial
Payne v. Tennessee
501 U.S. 808 (1991) Cited 2,611 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment
McKaskle v. Wiggins
465 U.S. 168 (1984) Cited 2,459 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that pro se defendant's right to self-representation was not violated by the presence of a court-appointed standby counsel
State v. Stenson
132 Wn. 2d 668 (Wash. 1997) Cited 1,371 times
Holding that an irreconcilable conflict may justify appointing new counsel, but that a "general loss of confidence or trust is not sufficient to substitute new counsel" under the Sixth Amendment
People v. Peque
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7651 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 624 times
Holding that New York trial courts must inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and that a failure to do so could provide a basis for withdrawing or vacating the guilty plea
Adams v. U.S. ex Rel. McCann
317 U.S. 269 (1942) Cited 1,936 times
Holding that ". . . an accused, in the exercise of a free and intelligent choice, and with the considered approval of the court, may waive trial by jury . . . There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent an accused from choosing to have his fate tried before a judge without a jury . . ."
Randall v. Sorrell
548 U.S. 230 (2006) Cited 181 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding Vermont's expenditure limitations unconstitutional under the First Amendment
People v. Maracle
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 5121 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 335 times
2012-06-27 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Amber MARACLE, Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.). The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Amber Maracle, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.). Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria, LLP, Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy of counsel), for appellant in the first and second above-entitled actions. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Matthew B. Powers and Donna A. Milling of counsel), for respondent in the first and second above-entitled actions
People v. Sides
75 N.Y.2d 822 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 460 times
Requiring a new trial where indigent defendant requested a change of counsel and where record indicated a possible irreconcilable conflict between the defendant and his assigned attorney
People v. Windham
19 Cal.3d 121 (Cal. 1977) Cited 591 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Windham, the California Supreme Court held that a Faretta motion must be made a "reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial."

The People, Appellant,v.Raymond Crespo, Respondent.

54 Cited authorities

Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial

Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

Holding that pro se defendant's right to self-representation was not violated by the presence of a court-appointed standby counsel

Holding that an irreconcilable conflict may justify appointing new counsel, but that a "general loss of confidence or trust is not sufficient to substitute new counsel" under the Sixth Amendment

Holding that New York trial courts must inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and that a failure to do so could provide a basis for withdrawing or vacating the guilty plea

Holding that ". . . an accused, in the exercise of a free and intelligent choice, and with the considered approval of the court, may waive trial by jury . . . There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent an accused from choosing to have his fate tried before a judge without a jury . . ."

Holding Vermont's expenditure limitations unconstitutional under the First Amendment

Requiring a new trial where indigent defendant requested a change of counsel and where record indicated a possible irreconcilable conflict between the defendant and his assigned attorney

In Windham, the California Supreme Court held that a Faretta motion must be made a "reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial."