18 U.S.C. § 3006
Assignment of counsel—(Rule)
Appointment by court, rule 44.
Accused to be informed of right to counsel, rules 5 and 44.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102
cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Curry v. Wilson, 853 S.W.2d 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
Curry v. Wilson, 853 S.W.2d 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). “" There, the court decided that the rule announced in " 18 U.S.C.A. § 3006 A vests in the district court broad authority to issue such an order.”
United States of Am., & U.S. Dist. Court W. Dist. of New York v. Darnyl Parker, 439 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2006). “*97 However, the statutory language that the defendant must be “financially unable” to afford representation, 18 U.S.C. § 3006 (c), like the statutory language that the district court must make an “appropriate inquiry,” 18 U.”
Lee Farkas v. Warden, FCI Butner II, 972 F.3d 548 (4th Cir. 2020). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3006 (A). In September 2010, the district court granted a consent motion to release one of Farkas’s real properties—allowing him to hire a three- lawyer team from out of state and pay his court-appointed attorney.”
United States v. Ursini, 296 F. Supp. 1155 (D. Conn. 1968). “Clifford was appointed to represent Ursini pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006 A(b), and he continued to represent Ursini throughout proceedings in the District Court.”
Calvin Whitley v. Daniel A. Senkowski, Superintendent, Clinton Corr. Facility, 317 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2003). “The district court is also ordered to appoint Whitley counsel in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006 . 1 . While we have at least once remanded a similar case summarily with analogous instructions, Doe v.”
Jenkins v. United States, 548 A.2d 102 (D.C. 1988). “The federal courts have recognized, on the other hand, that once a prisoner files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, "the circumstances of a particular case [may] indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations"; and, in any event, pursuant to…”
United States v. Shields, 522 F. Supp. 2d 317 (D. Mass. 2007). “At the hearing, the certified person shall be represented by counsel (including appointed counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006 (A)) and “shall be afforded an opportunity to testify, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses on his behalf, and to confront and cross-examine” any…”
Ex Parte Moody, 684 So. 2d 114 (Ala. 1996). “18 U.S.C. § 3006 A(e)(1). Also, applications for subpoenas at public expense in federal criminal trials are made ex parte.”
Henry Ruffin Broaddus, & Frances Broaddus Crutchfield v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, & Cnty. of Hanover, Virginia, 380 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2004). “While the district court recognized, in its order denying attorney’s fees, that it must use “generally accepted accounting principles” to determine Broaddus’s net worth, it did not correctly apply those principles.”
United States v. Patrick Defillipo & James Defillipo, 590 F.2d 1228 (2d Cir. 1979). “Where the need for separate counsel imposes any undue financial burden the district court can appoint counsel under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006 . . This proposed rule does not become effective until it has been sent to the Congress by the Supreme Court of the…”
People v. Worthy, 109 Cal. App. 3d 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). “The court responded: “The test is not whether the indigent defendant is entitled to waste money in unnecessary expenditures as might an affluent and profligate defendant, but whether the indigent defendant is placed on a general level of equality with nonindigent defendants.”
Brooks v. State, 385 S.E.2d 81 (Ga. 1989). “, Rule 17 (b), and 18 USC § 3006 (A) (e) have been interpreted to require that such hearings occur outside the presence of the prosecutor.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3006(A)(g) — 1 case
Bey v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3006(a)(2)(b) — 1 case
Moco v. Bell (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3006(e) — 1 case
Martinez v. Duquin (W.D.N.Y. 2023).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.