Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 California opinions name it 3 courts 1946–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Zerbstgreen2 sentences1978The Arizona Supreme Court held that the trial court was not “required to set a hearing to determine whether the defendant through insanity or mental deficiency was not able to conduct his own *542 defense.” ( 406 P.2d, at p. 391 .) The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded because there was nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court had queried the defendant in accordance with Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ], to determine whether he made an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel. 1978The Arizona Supreme Court held that the trial court was not “required to set a hearing to determine whether the defendant through insanity or mental deficiency was not able to conduct his own *542 defense.” ( 406 P.2d, at p. 391 .) The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded because there was nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court had queried the defendant in accordance with Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ], to determine whether he made an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel. | 7 | 15 |
People v. Mattsongreen2 sentences1968In People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ], the court cautioned as to the need for counsel in order that a defendant might intelligently waive: ‘ ‘ The trial judge in discharging his ‘serious and weighty responsibility ... of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver [of the right to counsel] by the accused’ (Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) supra, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ]; People v. Chesser (1947) supra, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821-822 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]) has no duty to give defendant a legal education, and 1968In People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ], the court cautioned as to the need for counsel in order that a defendant might intelligently waive: ‘ ‘ The trial judge in discharging his ‘serious and weighty responsibility ... of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver [of the right to counsel] by the accused’ (Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) supra, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ]; People v. Chesser (1947) supra, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821-822 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]) has no duty to give defendant a legal education, and | 5 | 6 |
People v. Chessergreen2 sentences1968In People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ], the court cautioned as to the need for counsel in order that a defendant might intelligently waive: ‘ ‘ The trial judge in discharging his ‘serious and weighty responsibility ... of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver [of the right to counsel] by the accused’ (Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) supra, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ]; People v. Chesser (1947) supra, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821-822 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]) has no duty to give defendant a legal education, and 1968In People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ], the court cautioned as to the need for counsel in order that a defendant might intelligently waive: ‘ ‘ The trial judge in discharging his ‘serious and weighty responsibility ... of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver [of the right to counsel] by the accused’ (Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) supra, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ]; People v. Chesser (1947) supra, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821-822 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]) has no duty to give defendant a legal education, and | 4 | 6 |
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1967People v. Mattson, supra, 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ] ; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ].’ (People v. Jackson, 186 Cal.App.2d 307, 315-316 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 849 ].)” (People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 723 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) There being no cause to relieve counsel, the ruling of the court was proper. 1967People v. Mattson, supra, 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ] ; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ].’ (People v. Jackson, 186 Cal.App.2d 307, 315-316 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 849 ].)” (People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 723 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) There being no cause to relieve counsel, the ruling of the court was proper. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Shieldsgreen2 sentences1967People v. Mattson, supra, 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ] ; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ].’ (People v. Jackson, 186 Cal.App.2d 307, 315-316 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 849 ].)” (People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 723 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) There being no cause to relieve counsel, the ruling of the court was proper. 1967People v. Mattson, supra, 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ] ; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ].’ (People v. Jackson, 186 Cal.App.2d 307, 315-316 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 849 ].)” (People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 723 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) There being no cause to relieve counsel, the ruling of the court was proper. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Shroyergreen2 sentences1966(People v. Stewart, supra, 240 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 ; People v. Evans, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 534, 539 ; People v. McFerran, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 4, 7 ; and People v. Shroyer, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 483 .) Under such circumstances the objection that the defendant was deprived of the constitutional right to represent himself cannot be sustained in the absence of some other showing of an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel. 1966(People v. Stewart, supra, 240 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 ; People v. Evans, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 534, 539 ; People v. McFerran, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 4, 7 ; and People v. Shroyer, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 483 .) [13] Under such circumstances the objection that the defendant was deprived of the constitutional right to represent himself cannot be sustained in the absence of some other showing of an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel. | 1 | 3 |
Diaz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2003No case, prior to or since the Rule, has even suggested that a defendant in custody, other than escaping, can ‘voluntarily absent’ himself from his trial.” (Cross v. United States, supra, 325 F.2d at p. 631 , fns. omitted; see also Diaz v. United States, supra, 223 U.S. at p. 455 [ 32 S.Ct. at p. 254 ] [custodial defendant incapable of waiving right to presence “because his presence or absence is not within his own control”].) Because the federal court concluded that defendant Cross did not validly waive the right to be present (Cross v. United States, supra, 325 F.2d at pp. 632-633), and defe 2003No case, prior to or since the Rule, has even suggested that a defendant in custody, other than escaping, can ‘voluntarily absent’ himself from his trial.” (Cross v. United States, supra, 325 F.2d at p. 631 , fns. omitted; see also Diaz v. United States, supra, 223 U.S. at p. 455 [ 32 S.Ct. at p. 254 ] [custodial defendant incapable of waiving right to presence “because his presence or absence is not within his own control”].) Because the federal court concluded that defendant Cross did not validly waive the right to be present (Cross v. United States, supra, 325 F.2d at pp. 632-633), and defe | 1 | 1 |
In Re Tedfordgreen2 sentences1967(Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ] ; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 111, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 722 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) Before accepting such a waiver he is *913 duty bound to determine that it is competent, intelligent and complete (People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Shields, supra; People v. Shroyer, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 482 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 460 ]) and that the accused has an in 1967(Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ] ; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 111, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 722 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) Before accepting such a waiver he is *913 duty bound to determine that it is competent, intelligent and complete (People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Shields, supra; People v. Shroyer, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 482 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 460 ]) and that the accused has an in | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kempgreen2 sentences1967(Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ] ; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 111, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 722 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) Before accepting such a waiver he is *913 duty bound to determine that it is competent, intelligent and complete (People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Shields, supra; People v. Shroyer, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 482 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 460 ]) and that the accused has an in 1967(Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ] ; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 111, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 722 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) Before accepting such a waiver he is *913 duty bound to determine that it is competent, intelligent and complete (People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Shields, supra; People v. Shroyer, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 482 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 460 ]) and that the accused has an in | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cartergreen2 sentences1967(Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ] ; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 111, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 722 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) Before accepting such a waiver he is *913 duty bound to determine that it is competent, intelligent and complete (People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Shields, supra; People v. Shroyer, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 482 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 460 ]) and that the accused has an in 1967(Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ] ; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 111, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 722 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) Before accepting such a waiver he is *913 duty bound to determine that it is competent, intelligent and complete (People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Shields, supra; People v. Shroyer, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 482 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 460 ]) and that the accused has an in | 1 | 1 |
People v. Douglasgreen2 sentences1967(Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ] ; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 111, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 722 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) Before accepting such a waiver he is *913 duty bound to determine that it is competent, intelligent and complete (People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Shields, supra; People v. Shroyer, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 482 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 460 ]) and that the accused has an in 1967(Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ] ; People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 111, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 722 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) Before accepting such a waiver he is *913 duty bound to determine that it is competent, intelligent and complete (People v. Carter, 66 Cal.2d 666, 672 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 427 P.2d 214 ]; People v. Kemp, 55 Cal.2d 458, 463 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 359 P.2d 913 ]; People v. Shields, supra; People v. Shroyer, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 482 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 460 ]) and that the accused has an in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bowman v. Bowman
green
2 sentences1968In People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ], the court cautioned as to the need for counsel in order that a defendant might intelligently waive: ‘ ‘ The trial judge in discharging his ‘serious and weighty responsibility ... of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver [of the right to counsel] by the accused’ (Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) supra, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ]; People v. Chesser (1947) supra, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821-822 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ]) has no duty to give defendant a legal education, and 1967People v. Mattson, supra, 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815, 821 [ 178 P.2d 761 , 170 A.L.R. 246 ] ; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ].’ (People v. Jackson, 186 Cal.App.2d 307, 315-316 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 849 ].)” (People v. Shields, 232 Cal.App.2d 716, 723 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 188 ].) There being no cause to relieve counsel, the ruling of the court was proper. | 5 | 1960–1968 |
People v. McFerran
green
2 sentences1966(People v. Stewart, supra, 240 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 ; People v. Evans, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 534, 539 ; People v. McFerran, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 4, 7 ; and People v. Shroyer, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 483 .) Under such circumstances the objection that the defendant was deprived of the constitutional right to represent himself cannot be sustained in the absence of some other showing of an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel. 1966(People v. Stewart, supra, 240 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 ; People v. Evans, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 534, 539 ; People v. McFerran, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 4, 7 ; and People v. Shroyer, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 483 .) [13] Under such circumstances the objection that the defendant was deprived of the constitutional right to represent himself cannot be sustained in the absence of some other showing of an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel. | 3 | 1966–1966 |
Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann
green
2 sentences2017McCann (1942) 317 U.S. 269 , 281, 63 S.Ct. 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 ( Adams ).) Additionally, Supreme Court precedent teaches that a knowing and intelligent waiver of the jury trial right can depend as much on tactics as on the contours of the right. 1980And if the record before us does not show an intelligent and competent waiver of the right to the assistance of counsel by a defendant who demanded again and again that the judge try him, and who in his persistence of such a choice knew what he was about, it would be difficult to conceive of a set of circumstances in which there was such a free choice by a self-determining individual.” (Id. at p. 281 [ 87 L.Ed. at p. 276 ].) Here again People v. Torres, supra, 96 Cal.App.3d 14 is instructive. | 2 | 1980–2017 |
People v. Stewart
green
2 sentences1966(People v. Stewart, supra, 240 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 ; People v. Evans, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 534, 539 ; People v. McFerran, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 4, 7 ; and People v. Shroyer, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 483 .) Under such circumstances the objection that the defendant was deprived of the constitutional right to represent himself cannot be sustained in the absence of some other showing of an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel. 1966(People v. Stewart, supra, 240 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 ; People v. Evans, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 534, 539 ; People v. McFerran, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 4, 7 ; and People v. Shroyer, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 483 .) [13] Under such circumstances the objection that the defendant was deprived of the constitutional right to represent himself cannot be sustained in the absence of some other showing of an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel. | 2 | 1966–1966 |
People v. Evans
green
2 sentences1966(People v. Stewart, supra, 240 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 ; People v. Evans, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 534, 539 ; People v. McFerran, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 4, 7 ; and People v. Shroyer, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 483 .) Under such circumstances the objection that the defendant was deprived of the constitutional right to represent himself cannot be sustained in the absence of some other showing of an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel. 1966(People v. Stewart, supra, 240 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 ; People v. Evans, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 534, 539 ; People v. McFerran, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 4, 7 ; and People v. Shroyer, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 478, 483 .) [13] Under such circumstances the objection that the defendant was deprived of the constitutional right to represent himself cannot be sustained in the absence of some other showing of an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel. | 2 | 1966–1966 |
Harold S. Cross v. United States
green
1 sentence2003No case, prior to or since the Rule, has even suggested that a defendant in custody, other than escaping, can ‘voluntarily absent’ himself from his trial.” (Cross v. United States, supra, 325 F.2d at p. 631 , fns. omitted; see also Diaz v. United States, supra, 223 U.S. at p. 455 [ 32 S.Ct. at p. 254 ] [custodial defendant incapable of waiving right to presence “because his presence or absence is not within his own control”].) Because the federal court concluded that defendant Cross did not validly waive the right to be present (Cross v. United States, supra, 325 F.2d at pp. 632-633), and defe | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Torres
green
1 sentence1980And if the record before us does not show an intelligent and competent waiver of the right to the assistance of counsel by a defendant who demanded again and again that the judge try him, and who in his persistence of such a choice knew what he was about, it would be difficult to conceive of a set of circumstances in which there was such a free choice by a self-determining individual.” (Id. at p. 281 [ 87 L.Ed. at p. 276 ].) Here again People v. Torres, supra, 96 Cal.App.3d 14 is instructive. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Westbrook
green
1 sentence1978The Arizona Supreme Court held that the trial court was not “required to set a hearing to determine whether the defendant through insanity or mental deficiency was not able to conduct his own *542 defense.” ( 406 P.2d, at p. 391 .) The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded because there was nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court had queried the defendant in accordance with Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 465 [ 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1467 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ], to determine whether he made an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Westbrook v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1978(Westbrook v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 150 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 429 , 86 S.Ct. 1320 ].) In Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806 , the United States Supreme Court ruled that the denial of the right of self-representation was impermissible under Sixth Amendment mandates, assuming the decision of a defendant to represent himself is a voluntary and intelligent one. 1978(Westbrook v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 150 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 429 , 86 S.Ct. 1320 ].) In Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806 , the United States Supreme Court ruled that the denial of the right of self-representation was impermissible under Sixth Amendment mandates, assuming the decision of a defendant to represent himself is a voluntary and intelligent one. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Faretta v. California
green
1 sentence1978(Westbrook v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 150 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 429 , 86 S.Ct. 1320 ].) In Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. 806 , the United States Supreme Court ruled that the denial of the right of self-representation was impermissible under Sixth Amendment mandates, assuming the decision of a defendant to represent himself is a voluntary and intelligent one. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
United States v. Raphael Plattner
green
1 sentence1968If the judge’s properly limited inquiry concerning the necessity for appointment of counsel suggests that defendant may not comprehend his position then the judge should assign an attorney to consult privately with « defendant concerning the latter’s need for representation.” *224 In dealing with this question from a federal constitutional aspect, Judge Medina, speaking for the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in the case of United States v. Plattner, 330 F.2d 271, 273-274 , said: “Under the Fifth Amendment, no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
cluster 268535
green
1 sentence1967United States v. Denno, 348 F.2d 12 , 15, is heavily relied upon by Powers. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
People v. Butcher
green
2 sentences1963(Accord: People v. Butcher (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 722 [ 345 P.2d 127 ].) But "The trial judge ... has no duty to give defendant a legal education, and the judge has no right, in view of the privilege against self-incrimination, to ask defendant about his understanding of the facts of the ease.” (People v. Mattson (1959) 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ].) Strictly speaking, the issue is not a waiver of assistance of counsel except in the sense that defendant, after a day’s representation of him by counsel was given a choice of either proceeding with the counsel chosen for him or proceeding on 1963(Accord: People v. Butcher (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 722 [ 345 P.2d 127 ].) But "The trial judge ... has no duty to give defendant a legal education, and the judge has no right, in view of the privilege against self-incrimination, to ask defendant about his understanding of the facts of the ease.” (People v. Mattson (1959) 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [ 336 P.2d 937 ].) Strictly speaking, the issue is not a waiver of assistance of counsel except in the sense that defendant, after a day’s representation of him by counsel was given a choice of either proceeding with the counsel chosen for him or proceeding on | 1 | 1963–1963 |
In Re Connor
green
1 sentence1947These factors were considered by this court in the Connor case ( 16 Cal.2d 701 ) in deciding whether there had been an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel by the accused. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.