Search for: ""Faretta v. California" OR "422 U.S. 806"" Results 1 - 20 of 31
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Apr 2008, 2:44 pm
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), that defendants had a right to represent themselves at trial. [read post]
14 May 2018, 8:15 am by Kent Scheidegger
California, 422 U.S. 806, 852 (1975) (Blackmun, J., dissenting). [read post]
14 May 2015, 9:51 am by Jon Sands
California 422 U.S. 806 (1975). [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 12:15 pm by Jon Sands
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), and that the state courts did not reasonably reject this claim. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 3:29 pm
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) and its progeny; and in holding that a finding that Mr. [read post]
15 May 2012, 8:11 am by PaulKostro
Reddish, supra, 181 N.J. at 595 (quoting Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at 835). [read post]
7 Apr 2008, 12:28 pm
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), that defendants had a right to represent themselves at trial. [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 6:53 am by Michael DelSignore
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) that a defendant has the negative Constitutional right, that to waive counsel and represent himself pro se. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 2:23 pm by Jamie Spencer
 If he never hit the books actually studying criminal law, he might want to look up Faretta v California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 1:04 pm by Jon Sands
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 3:30 pm by R.J. MacReady
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) and its progeny; and in holding that a finding that Mr. [read post]
15 May 2014, 11:06 am by Steve Delchin
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), when the trial court denied his request through trial counsel that he be allowed to represent himself. [read post]
7 Jun 2017, 11:57 am
California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, after the court indicated it would find good cause to continue the trial because appellant’s appointed counsel was engaged in another trial. [read post]
26 Sep 2009, 7:52 am
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) and properly grant a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the state trial court failed to rule formally on a defendant’s request for self-representation? [read post]