23 Cited authorities

Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,560 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
Godinez v. Moran
509 U.S. 389 (1993) Cited 2,287 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the trial competency standard applies to guilty pleas
Indiana v. Edwards
554 U.S. 164 (2008) Cited 1,139 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by appointing counsel against defendant's objection where defendant was competent to stand trial but not competent to conduct trial proceedings by himself
McKaskle v. Wiggins
465 U.S. 168 (1984) Cited 2,460 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
Iowa v. Tovar
541 U.S. 77 (2004) Cited 842 times 6 Legal Analyses
Finding it significant that Tovar did not assert that he was unaware of his right to counsel prior to pleading guilty and at the plea hearing
Blystone v. Pennsylvania
494 U.S. 299 (1990) Cited 456 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding statute sufficiently narrows the class of death-eligible defendants to survive constitutional scrutiny if it "allow the jury to consider all relevant mitigating evidence"
People v. Brown
59 Cal.4th 86 (Cal. 2014) Cited 319 times
Noting that juries are entitled to weigh a witness's credibility
U.S. v. Frazier-El
204 F.3d 553 (4th Cir. 2000) Cited 239 times
Holding a § 922(g) defendant only had to know the facts that made his conduct illegal, not that he was aware that his conduct was illegal
Silagy v. Peters
905 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1990) Cited 184 times
Holding that people older than 70 were not a cognizable “distinctive” group
United States v. Bernard
708 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2013) Cited 82 times
In Bernard, the defendant's counsel was present at the Faretta inquiry and argued on behalf of the defendant's desire to represent himself.

USA v. Roof

23 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 the trial competency standard applies to guilty pleas

Holding that the court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by appointing counsel against defendant's objection where defendant was competent to stand trial but not competent to conduct trial proceedings by himself

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

Finding it significant that Tovar did not assert that he was unaware of his right to counsel prior to pleading guilty and at the plea hearing

Holding statute sufficiently narrows the class of death-eligible defendants to survive constitutional scrutiny if it "allow the jury to consider all relevant mitigating evidence"

Noting that juries are entitled to weigh a witness's credibility

Holding a § 922(g) defendant only had to know the facts that made his conduct illegal, not that he was aware that his conduct was illegal

Holding that people older than 70 were not a cognizable “distinctive” group

In Bernard, the defendant's counsel was present at the Faretta inquiry and argued on behalf of the defendant's desire to represent himself.