Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 535 U.S. 926 (2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 535 U.S. 926 (2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a violation would be harmless when the defendant already knew the information omitted by the judge - when, for example, his own lawyer had told him about cross-examination, or the written plea agreement had specified the maximum possible punishment.”
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Loutos (ilnd, 2003-04-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Loutos
N.D. Ill. · 2003 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a violation would be harmless when the defendant already knew the information omitted by the judge - when, for example, his own lawyer had told him about cross-examination, or the written plea agreement had specified the maximum possible punishment.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sattazahn
v.
Pennsylvania
01-7574.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 18, 2002.
535 U.S. 926
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 71%
Citer courts: N.D. Illinois (1)

Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.