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.
6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Monroe v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004On this record I would hold that the trial court did not meet its "obligation to question defense counsel directly, on the record, about the specifics of [appellant's] complaint." Nelson, 601 A.2d at 592 ; see Monroe, 389 A.2d at 821 . "[W]hen a defendant requests new counsel, based on pretrial ineffectiveness ... and the trial court conducts no inquiry" or an inadequate inquiry, as in this case"this court will remand for findings on the issue." McFadden v. United States, 614 A.2d 11, 17 (D.C.1992) (citations omitted); accord, Matthews v. United States, 629 A.2d 1185, 1193 (D.C.1993) ("In th 2004On this record I would hold that the trial court did not meet its “obligation to question defense counsel directly, on the record, about the specifics of [appellant’s] complaint.” Nelson, 601 A.2d at 592 ; see Monroe, 389 A.2d at 821 . “[W]hen a defendant requests new counsel, based on pretrial ineffectiveness ... and the trial court conducts no inquiry”— or an inadequate inquiry, as in this case— “this court will remand for findings on the issue.” McFadden v. United States, 614 A.2d 11, 17 (D.C.1992) (citations omitted); accord, Matthews v. United States, 629 A.2d 1185, 1193 (D.C.1993) (“In t | 2 | 2 |
State v. Funkgreen1 sentence2025The statement Sonmez had made at that point (which her editors had pre-approved) did not state a position on a 62 See Hill, 578 A.2d at 376 (discussing long-held prejudices that women who complained about rape were deranged, emotional, and untrustworthy and therefore needed additional examination and stringent timeliness requirements when making claims against assailants); cf. State v. Funk, 799 N.W.2d 421, 436 (Wisc. 2011) (explaining that “the fact that a juror has been a victim of sexual assault does not make him or her per se biased against the defendant in a sexual assault case”); see als | 1 | 1 |
Abshire v. Stategreen1 sentence2025The statement Sonmez had made at that point (which her editors had pre-approved) did not state a position on a 62 See Hill, 578 A.2d at 376 (discussing long-held prejudices that women who complained about rape were deranged, emotional, and untrustworthy and therefore needed additional examination and stringent timeliness requirements when making claims against assailants); cf. State v. Funk, 799 N.W.2d 421, 436 (Wisc. 2011) (explaining that “the fact that a juror has been a victim of sexual assault does not make him or her per se biased against the defendant in a sexual assault case”); see als | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen1 sentence2025The statement Sonmez had made at that point (which her editors had pre-approved) did not state a position on a 62 See Hill, 578 A.2d at 376 (discussing long-held prejudices that women who complained about rape were deranged, emotional, and untrustworthy and therefore needed additional examination and stringent timeliness requirements when making claims against assailants); cf. State v. Funk, 799 N.W.2d 421, 436 (Wisc. 2011) (explaining that “the fact that a juror has been a victim of sexual assault does not make him or her per se biased against the defendant in a sexual assault case”); see als | 1 | 1 |
McFadden v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004On this record I would hold that the trial court did not meet its "obligation to question defense counsel directly, on the record, about the specifics of [appellant's] complaint." Nelson, 601 A.2d at 592 ; see Monroe, 389 A.2d at 821 . "[W]hen a defendant requests new counsel, based on pretrial ineffectiveness ... and the trial court conducts no inquiry" or an inadequate inquiry, as in this case"this court will remand for findings on the issue." McFadden v. United States, 614 A.2d 11, 17 (D.C.1992) (citations omitted); accord, Matthews v. United States, 629 A.2d 1185, 1193 (D.C.1993) ("In th 2004On this record I would hold that the trial court did not meet its “obligation to question defense counsel directly, on the record, about the specifics of [appellant’s] complaint.” Nelson, 601 A.2d at 592 ; see Monroe, 389 A.2d at 821 . “[W]hen a defendant requests new counsel, based on pretrial ineffectiveness ... and the trial court conducts no inquiry”— or an inadequate inquiry, as in this case— “this court will remand for findings on the issue.” McFadden v. United States, 614 A.2d 11, 17 (D.C.1992) (citations omitted); accord, Matthews v. United States, 629 A.2d 1185, 1193 (D.C.1993) (“In t | 1 | 1 |
Matthews v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004On this record I would hold that the trial court did not meet its "obligation to question defense counsel directly, on the record, about the specifics of [appellant's] complaint." Nelson, 601 A.2d at 592 ; see Monroe, 389 A.2d at 821 . "[W]hen a defendant requests new counsel, based on pretrial ineffectiveness ... and the trial court conducts no inquiry" or an inadequate inquiry, as in this case"this court will remand for findings on the issue." McFadden v. United States, 614 A.2d 11, 17 (D.C.1992) (citations omitted); accord, Matthews v. United States, 629 A.2d 1185, 1193 (D.C.1993) ("In th 2004On this record I would hold that the trial court did not meet its “obligation to question defense counsel directly, on the record, about the specifics of [appellant’s] complaint.” Nelson, 601 A.2d at 592 ; see Monroe, 389 A.2d at 821 . “[W]hen a defendant requests new counsel, based on pretrial ineffectiveness ... and the trial court conducts no inquiry”— or an inadequate inquiry, as in this case— “this court will remand for findings on the issue.” McFadden v. United States, 614 A.2d 11, 17 (D.C.1992) (citations omitted); accord, Matthews v. United States, 629 A.2d 1185, 1193 (D.C.1993) (“In t | 1 | 1 |
Briggs v. Zotos International, Inc.green1 sentence1985Briggs v. Zotos International, Inc., 357 F.Supp. 89, 91 (ED.Va.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCanngreen2 sentences1976Glenn v. United States, 303 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1962); United States v. Arlen, 252 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1958); see Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269, 279 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942); Cleveland v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 322 F.2d 401 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 884 , 84 S.Ct. 157 , 11 L.Ed.2d 114 (1963); United States v. Birrell, 286 F.Supp. 885 (S.D.N.Y.1968). 3 We therefore turn to the record to ascertain whether appellant’s conduct was such as to amount to a waiver of his right to counsel at his trial. 1976Glenn v. United States, 303 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1962); United States v. Arlen, 252 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1958); see Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269, 279 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942); Cleveland v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 322 F.2d 401 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 884 , 84 S.Ct. 157 , 11 L.Ed.2d 114 (1963); United States v. Birrell, 286 F.Supp. 885 (S.D.N.Y.1968). 3 We therefore turn to the record to ascertain whether appellant’s conduct was such as to amount to a waiver of his right to counsel at his trial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nelson v. United States
green
2 sentences2004On this record I would hold that the trial court did not meet its "obligation to question defense counsel directly, on the record, about the specifics of [appellant's] complaint." Nelson, 601 A.2d at 592 ; see Monroe, 389 A.2d at 821 . "[W]hen a defendant requests new counsel, based on pretrial ineffectiveness ... and the trial court conducts no inquiry" or an inadequate inquiry, as in this case"this court will remand for findings on the issue." McFadden v. United States, 614 A.2d 11, 17 (D.C.1992) (citations omitted); accord, Matthews v. United States, 629 A.2d 1185, 1193 (D.C.1993) ("In th 2004On this record I would hold that the trial court did not meet its “obligation to question defense counsel directly, on the record, about the specifics of [appellant’s] complaint.” Nelson, 601 A.2d at 592 ; see Monroe, 389 A.2d at 821 . “[W]hen a defendant requests new counsel, based on pretrial ineffectiveness ... and the trial court conducts no inquiry”— or an inadequate inquiry, as in this case— “this court will remand for findings on the issue.” McFadden v. United States, 614 A.2d 11, 17 (D.C.1992) (citations omitted); accord, Matthews v. United States, 629 A.2d 1185, 1193 (D.C.1993) (“In t | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Boyd v. United States
green
1 sentence1998As a “prophylactic colloquy,” id. at 679-80 n. 19, Boyd advocates, but does not mandate, that trial courts question a nontestifying defendant at trial in order to confirm on the record at that point that he or she has fully waived the right to testify, and thus to preempt any post-trial challenges to the waiver. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. George v. Arlen
green
1 sentence1976Glenn v. United States, 303 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1962); United States v. Arlen, 252 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1958); see Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269, 279 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942); Cleveland v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 322 F.2d 401 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 884 , 84 S.Ct. 157 , 11 L.Ed.2d 114 (1963); United States v. Birrell, 286 F.Supp. 885 (S.D.N.Y.1968). 3 We therefore turn to the record to ascertain whether appellant’s conduct was such as to amount to a waiver of his right to counsel at his trial. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
United States v. Birrell
green
1 sentence1976Glenn v. United States, 303 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1962); United States v. Arlen, 252 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1958); see Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269, 279 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942); Cleveland v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 322 F.2d 401 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 884 , 84 S.Ct. 157 , 11 L.Ed.2d 114 (1963); United States v. Birrell, 286 F.Supp. 885 (S.D.N.Y.1968). 3 We therefore turn to the record to ascertain whether appellant’s conduct was such as to amount to a waiver of his right to counsel at his trial. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
cluster 257306
green
1 sentence1976Glenn v. United States, 303 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1962); United States v. Arlen, 252 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1958); see Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269, 279 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942); Cleveland v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 322 F.2d 401 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 884 , 84 S.Ct. 157 , 11 L.Ed.2d 114 (1963); United States v. Birrell, 286 F.Supp. 885 (S.D.N.Y.1968). 3 We therefore turn to the record to ascertain whether appellant’s conduct was such as to amount to a waiver of his right to counsel at his trial. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Wilbur M. Cleveland v. United States
green
1 sentence1976Glenn v. United States, 303 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1962); United States v. Arlen, 252 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1958); see Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269, 279 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942); Cleveland v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 322 F.2d 401 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 884 , 84 S.Ct. 157 , 11 L.Ed.2d 114 (1963); United States v. Birrell, 286 F.Supp. 885 (S.D.N.Y.1968). 3 We therefore turn to the record to ascertain whether appellant’s conduct was such as to amount to a waiver of his right to counsel at his trial. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Hess v. Kriz
green
1 sentence1976Glenn v. United States, 303 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1962); United States v. Arlen, 252 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1958); see Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269, 279 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942); Cleveland v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 322 F.2d 401 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 884 , 84 S.Ct. 157 , 11 L.Ed.2d 114 (1963); United States v. Birrell, 286 F.Supp. 885 (S.D.N.Y.1968). 3 We therefore turn to the record to ascertain whether appellant’s conduct was such as to amount to a waiver of his right to counsel at his trial. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Moon v. United States
green
1 sentence1976Glenn v. United States, 303 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1962); United States v. Arlen, 252 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1958); see Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269, 279 , 63 S.Ct. 236 , 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942); Cleveland v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 322 F.2d 401 , cert. denied, 375 U.S. 884 , 84 S.Ct. 157 , 11 L.Ed.2d 114 (1963); United States v. Birrell, 286 F.Supp. 885 (S.D.N.Y.1968). 3 We therefore turn to the record to ascertain whether appellant’s conduct was such as to amount to a waiver of his right to counsel at his trial. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.