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.
7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reliford v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2020Indeed, “a trial court’s ability to force 11 counsel upon an unwilling defendant is limited.” Reliford v. People, 195 Colo. 549, 552 , 579 P.2d 1145, 1147 (1978). ¶ 18 When a defendant asserts a violation of his right to self-representation, appellate courts generally consider whether the trial court appointed counsel despite the defendant’s unequivocal waiver of his right to counsel. 2020Indeed, “a trial court’s ability to force 11 counsel upon an unwilling defendant is limited.” Reliford v. People, 195 Colo. 549, 552 , 579 P.2d 1145, 1147 (1978). ¶ 18 When a defendant asserts a violation of his right to self-representation, appellate courts generally consider whether the trial court appointed counsel despite the defendant’s unequivocal waiver of his right to counsel. | 1 | 1 |
98, People v. Westgreen1 sentence2020See People v. West, 2019 COA 131, ¶¶ 18-19 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2019See United States v. McNeal, 663 F. App’x 732, 736 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (holding that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s right to self-representation when it did not grant him a continuance to prepare his defense); People v. Johnson, 2015 COA 54, ¶¶ 15-25 , 356 P.3d 1024, 1030-31 (reversing the trial court’s judgment based on its denial of the invocation of his right to represent himself); 8 Abdu, 215 P.3d at 1269 (concluding that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s right to self-representation when the defendant did not unequivocally assert his right). 2019See United States v. McNeal, 663 F. App’x 732, 736 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (holding that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s right to self-representation when it did not grant him a continuance to prepare his defense); People v. Johnson, 2015 COA 54, ¶¶ 15-25 , 356 P.3d 1024, 1030-31 (reversing the trial court’s judgment based on its denial of the invocation of his right to represent himself); 8 Abdu, 215 P.3d at 1269 (concluding that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s right to self-representation when the defendant did not unequivocally assert his right). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. McNeal (Phinehas)green1 sentence2019See United States v. McNeal, 663 F. App’x 732, 736 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (holding that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s right to self-representation when it did not grant him a continuance to prepare his defense); People v. Johnson, 2015 COA 54, ¶¶ 15-25 , 356 P.3d 1024, 1030-31 (reversing the trial court’s judgment based on its denial of the invocation of his right to represent himself); 8 Abdu, 215 P.3d at 1269 (concluding that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s right to self-representation when the defendant did not unequivocally assert his right). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Abdugreen1 sentence2019See United States v. McNeal, 663 F. App’x 732, 736 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (holding that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s right to self-representation when it did not grant him a continuance to prepare his defense); People v. Johnson, 2015 COA 54, ¶¶ 15-25 , 356 P.3d 1024, 1030-31 (reversing the trial court’s judgment based on its denial of the invocation of his right to represent himself); 8 Abdu, 215 P.3d at 1269 (concluding that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s right to self-representation when the defendant did not unequivocally assert his right). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Peter Johnsongreen1 sentence2011Thus, if a defendant asserts a defense that has the effect of negating any element of the offense, the prosecution must disprove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt." (citations omitted); United States v. Unser, 165 F.3d 755, 764 (10th Cir.1999) ("[Wlhen evidence has been produced of a defense which, if accepted by the trier of fact, would negate an element of the offense, the government must bear the ultimate burden of persuasion on that element, including disproving the defense."); United States v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 208, 213-14 (2d Cir.1992) ("To be valid, an affirmative defense may not, | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert W. Unsergreen1 sentence2011Thus, if a defendant asserts a defense that has the effect of negating any element of the offense, the prosecution must disprove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt." (citations omitted); United States v. Unser, 165 F.3d 755, 764 (10th Cir.1999) ("[Wlhen evidence has been produced of a defense which, if accepted by the trier of fact, would negate an element of the offense, the government must bear the ultimate burden of persuasion on that element, including disproving the defense."); United States v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 208, 213-14 (2d Cir.1992) ("To be valid, an affirmative defense may not, | 1 | 1 |
Thomas H. Wynn v. William A. Mahoney, Brunswick Correctional Unitgreen1 sentence2011Such a presumption would, without question, violate due process."); Wynn v. Mahoney, 600 F.2d 448, 450-51 (4th Cir.1979) (finding constitutional error in instructing the jury that the defendant had the burden to prove self-defense, because the absence of self-defense was an element of murder that had to be proved by the prosecution). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parlapiano v. District Court in & for Tenth Jud. Dist.
green
2 sentences1972Had this case been tried after we announced Parlapiano v. District Court, 176 Colo. 521 , 491 P.2d 965 (1971), the defendant would have been correct in his position. 1972Had this case been tried after we announced Parlapiano v. District Court, 176 Colo. 521 , 491 P.2d 965 (1971), the defendant would have been correct in his position. | 2 | 1972–1972 |
People v. Arguello
green
1 sentence2019Accordingly, the Arguello court acknowledged that “[c]ourts must indulge every reasonable presumption against finding a waiver of the fundamental right to counsel.” Id. ¶ 19 Thus, when a defendant asserts a violation of his or her right to self-representation, appellate courts generally consider whether the trial court appointed counsel despite the defendant’s unequivocal waiver of his or her right to counsel. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Ciccarelli v. People
green
2 sentences1979This instruction is substantially similar to that discussed in Ciccarelli v. People, 147 Colo. 413 , 364 P.2d 368 (1961), which involved a burglary case. 1979This instruction is substantially similar to that discussed in Ciccarelli v. People, 147 Colo. 413 , 364 P.2d 368 (1961), which involved a burglary case. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1975Conceding that the privilege against self-incrimination applies only to communicative compulsion, and the correctness of Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and Vigil v. People, 134 Colo. 126 , 300 P.2d 545 (1956), the defendant, nevertheless, contends that under the circumstances of this case ordering him to give his fingerprints in the presence of the jury constituted testimonial or communicative evidence. 1975Conceding that the privilege against self-incrimination applies only to communicative compulsion, and the correctness of Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and Vigil v. People, 134 Colo. 126 , 300 P.2d 545 (1956), the defendant, nevertheless, contends that under the circumstances of this case ordering him to give his fingerprints in the presence of the jury constituted testimonial or communicative evidence. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Vigil v. People
green
2 sentences1975Conceding that the privilege against self-incrimination applies only to communicative compulsion, and the correctness of Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and Vigil v. People, 134 Colo. 126 , 300 P.2d 545 (1956), the defendant, nevertheless, contends that under the circumstances of this case ordering him to give his fingerprints in the presence of the jury constituted testimonial or communicative evidence. 1975Conceding that the privilege against self-incrimination applies only to communicative compulsion, and the correctness of Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and Vigil v. People, 134 Colo. 126 , 300 P.2d 545 (1956), the defendant, nevertheless, contends that under the circumstances of this case ordering him to give his fingerprints in the presence of the jury constituted testimonial or communicative evidence. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.