green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.8 score
“the judge has considerable room to exercise 'judgment”
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Williams
the judge has considerable room to exercise 'judgment
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Sanders
To exercise one’s constitutional right to self-representation in a criminal trial (see, Faretta v California, 422 US 806 ), “there must be (1) a timely and unequivocal request to appear pro se, (2) a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) no conduct on the defendant’s part that would interfere with a fair and orderly trial” (People v McRae, 284 AD2d 657, 657 , lv denied 96 NY2d 921 ; see, People v Smith, 68 NY2d 737, 738 , cert denied 479 US 953 ; People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 ; People v Ward, 205 AD2d 876, 877 , lv denied 84 NY2d 873 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gleason
(2×)
See Mustafa v. United States, 479 U.S. 953 , 107 S.Ct. 444 , 93 L.Ed.2d 392 (1986) (White, J., joined by Brennan, J., dissenting on denial of petition for writ of certiorari on the ground that the Court should resolve the split in authority over the applicability of the Frye test to a rule 702 analysis).
cited
Cited "see"
Edward G. Petersen v. United States Attorney General Attorney General for the State of California Commissioner, United States Parole Commission Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
See Heath v. United States Parole Comm'n, 788 F.2d 85, 92 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 953 (1986); Saulsbury v. United States, 591 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 857 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corporation
See United States v. Mustafa, 22 M.J. 165 (C.M.A.) (holding that enactment of Federal Rules superseded Frye test), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 953 , 107 S.Ct. 444 , 444-45, 93 L.Ed.2d 392 (1986) (White, J., & Brennan, J., dissenting) (noting need to resolve conflict in circuits over whether Rule 702 superseded or incorporated Frye ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp.
See United States v. Mustafa, 22 M.J. 165 (C.M.A.) (holding that enactment of Federal Rules superseded Frye test), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 953 , 107 S.Ct. 444 , 444-45, 93 L.Ed.2d 392 (1986) (White, J., & Brennan, J., dissenting) (noting need to resolve conflict in circuits over whether Rule 702 superseded or incorporated Frye).
discussed
Cited "see"
Richardson v. Luther
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Heath v. United States Parole Comm’n, 788 F.2d 85, 89-90 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 953 , 107 S.Ct. 443 , 93 L.Ed.2d 391 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shakur v. United States
See, e.g., Heath v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 788 F.2d 85, 92 (2d Cir.1986) (“The Commission is not obligated to follow the recommendations of the sentencing court.”), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 953 , 107 S.Ct. 443 , 93 L.Ed.2d 391 (1986); Dioguardi v. United States, 587 F.2d 572, 574-75 (2d Cir.1978) (the Commission’s decision to grant or deny parole is not part of the sentencing process).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ernest G. Moore v. W.A. Perrill, Warden United States Parole Commission
See, e.g., Heath v. United States Parole Comm'n, 788 F.2d 85, 87, 91-92 (2d Cir.) (revocation while in custody on subsequent state sentence), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 953 (1986); Berg v. United States Parole Comm'n, 735 F.2d 378 , 379 (9th Cir.1984) (same); see also McConnell v. Martin, 896 F.2d 441, 446 (10th Cir.) (revocation in conjunction with parole hearing on subsequent federal sentence then in force), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 861 (1990); Tijerina v. Thornburgh, 884 F.2d 861, 863-64 (5th Cir.1989) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Manuel Cortinas v. United States Parole Commission, Southwest Region
See United States v. Wickham, 618 F.2d 1307, 1310 (9th Cir.1979) (requiring demonstration of prejudice by showing impaired ability to contest alleged violation or showing adverse effect upon ability to present favorable evidence); see also Heath v. United States Parole Comm’n, 788 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir.) (delay between issuance of warrant and revocation hearing must have resulted in prejudice to warrant habeas relief (citing, inter alia, Lambert v. Warden, United States Penitentiary, 591 F.2d 4, 7-8 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam) (failure of Commission to comply with statutory time limits does no…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Peoplev. Pelto
We conclude, therefore, that defendant’s decision to proceed pro se was based upon an intelligent, knowing, voluntary and unequivocal waiver of his right to counsel (see, People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 ; see also, People v Smith, 68 NY2d 737 , cert denied 479 US 953 ; People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 22 , cert denied 459 US 1178 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Meagher v. Dugger
See 18 U.S.C. § 4210 (b)(2) (1982) (“[I]n case of a parolee who has been convicted of a Federal, State, or local crime committed subsequent to his release on parole, and such crime is punishable by a term of imprisonment, ... the Commission shall determine ... where all or any part of the unexpired term being served at the time of parole shall run concurrently or consecutively with the sentence imposed for the new offense.”), repealed by Pub.L. 98-473, § 218 (a)(5), 98 Stat. 2027 (1984); see also D'Amato v. United States Parole Commission, 837 F.2d 72 , 79 (2nd Cir.1988) (“18 U.S.C. §…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Heath
v.
United States Parole Commission
v.
United States Parole Commission
No. 86-5630.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 10, 1986.
Published
Citer courts: U S Air Force Court of Militar… (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.