- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
U.S. v. Back
307 F. App'x 876 (6th Cir. 2008)3 Citing cases
United States v. Abdulmutallab
739 F.3d 891 (6th Cir. 2014) Cited 44 timesHolding that a defendant who pleads guilty may not raise on appeal an adverse ruling on a pre-plea motion to suppress unless the right to do so was specifically preserved by entry of a conditional plea
As the Supreme Court has made clear, while a criminal defendant who proceeds pro se may, like any other pro se litigant, have a fool for a client, that does not mean that he or she is presumptively incompetent[.]” 307 Fed.Appx. 876, 879 (6th Cir.2008) (citing Godinez, 509 U.S. at 401 n. 13, 113 S.Ct. 2680). “While defendant's decision may have been ill-advised, the district court did enough to ascertain that defendant was capable of understanding the consequences of his course of action.”
United States v. Abdulmutallab
No. 12-1207 (6th Cir. Jan. 13, 2014)As the Supreme Court has made clear, while a criminal defendant who proceeds pro se may, like any other pro se litigant, have a fool for a client, that does not mean that he or she is presumptively incompetent[.]" 307 F. App'x 876, 879 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Godinez, 509 U.S. at 401 n.13). "While defendant's decision may have been ill-advised, the district court did enough to ascertain that defendant was capable of understanding the consequences of his course of action." Id.
U.S. v. Berry
565 F.3d 385 (7th Cir. 2009) Cited 52 timesRecognizing the "distinction in terms of a federal court's power to block a gray-area defendant's self-representation request," but applying Edwards nonetheless to federal court prosecution
Second, there is the fact that every court to consider Edwards in the context of a federal criminal trial has thus far taken it for granted that its holding controls. See DeShazer, 554 F.3d at 1289-90; United States v. Garey, 540 F.3d 1253, 1267 n. 9 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Back, 307 Fed.Appx. 876, 879 (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished); United States v. Arenburg, 2008 WL 3286444, *4-5 (W.D.N.Y. Aug.7, 2008) (unpublished); United States v. Dilley, 2008 WL 3091263, *1-2 (N.D.Ind. Aug.5, 2008) (unpublished); United States v. Duncan, 2008 WL 2954976, *2-3 (D.Idaho July 29, 2008) (unpublished).