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 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 33 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Ishmael Gallop.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Ishmael Gallop Anchor | green | “whether the attorney/client conflict was so great that it had resulted in total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense.” | 10 |
| 2 | United States v. Foster | green | “we review de novo the legal conclusion of the district court, but review for clear error the district court's underlying factual findings.” | 4 |
| 3 | United States v. Zarina Lenetta Mullen, A/K/A Z | green | “a period of more than one month,” | 4 |
| 4 | United States v. James Larry Johnson | green | “rather an examination of whether the extent of the breakdown prevents the ability to conduct an adequate defense is the necessary inquiry.” | 4 |
| 5 | Glover v. Miro | green | “especially to state trials on federal collateral review,” | 4 |
| 6 | Charlie Lee Mitchell v. Warden Gerald Mason | green | “contributing to the weight of the evidence that demonstrates that there was no consultation between defendant and his attorney prior to trial.” | 4 |
| 7 | Herman Mathew via v. Superintendent, Powhatan Correctional Center | green | “statements at arraignment that facially demonstrate the validity of his plea are conclusive” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.