United States v. Kamal Kaga, 61 F.3d 897 (3rd Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Kamal Kaga, 61 F.3d 897 (3rd Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
58 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Davis v. Grant (ca2, 2008-07-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Davis v. Grant
2d Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jennings, 855 F.Supp. 1427, 1445-46 (M.D.Pa.1994), aff'd, 61 F.3d 897 (3d Cir.1995) (unpublished table decision); People v. Anderson, 133 A.D.2d 120, 121 , 518 N.Y.S.2d 658 (2d Dep’t 1987).
cited Cited "see" Taccetta v. United States
D.N.J. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Taecetta, 61 F.3d 897 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 231 , 133 L.Ed.2d 159 (1995).
cited Cited "see" Perna v. United States
D.N.J. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Perna, 61 F.3d 897 (3d Cir.1995).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Vincent Fischetti v. Philip Johnson Gerald J. Pappert.
3rd Cir. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Jennings, 855 F.Supp. 1427 (M.D.Pa.1994) (assault on appointed attorney waives counsel “by implication”), aff'd, 61 F.3d 897 (3d Cir.1995) (table).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gregory Gilchrist v. John R. O'keefe, Superintendent
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
On appeal, the Third Circuit held that “[t]o forfeit the right to legal representation, a defendant must engage in ‘extremely serious misconduct,’ ” id. at 250 (quoting United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092, 1102 (3d Cir.1995)), and concluded that petitioner’s unprovoked attack “qualifies as the sort of ‘extremely serious misconduct’ that amounts to the forfeiture of the right to counsel.” Id. (quoting Goldberg, 67 F.3d at 1102 ); see also United States v. Jennings, 855 F.Supp. 1427 (M.D.Pa.1994) (court held that defendant “waived” right to appointment of new *99 counse…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Kamal Kaga
94-2177.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jun 22, 1995.
61 F.3d 897
Published

61 F.3d 897

U.S.
v.
Kamal Kaga

NO. 94-2177

United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.

June 22, 1995

Appeal From: E.D.Pa., No. 94-cr-00230-2

1

AFFIRMED.

2

Federal Reporter. The Third Circuit provides by rule for the reporting of opinions having 'precedential or institutional value. An opinion which appears to have value only to the trial court or the parties is ordinarily not published.' The Federal Reporter tables are prepared from lists of cases terminated by judgment orders, unpublished per curiam opinions and unpublished signed opinions, indicating the disposition of each case, transmitted by the Court. Third Circuit Rules, App. 1, Internal Operating Procedures, Ch. 5, sec. 5.1, 28 U.S.C.A.)