Cleburn Lee Marshall v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “Certainly the movant cannot be said to ‘waive’ disclosure of his case and his concomitant rights against self-incrimination and to due process by proceeding under subsection [SOOBA^e
• \[t]he manifest purpose of requiring that [the applications for defense funding] be ex parte is to insure that the defendant will not have to make a premature disclosure of his case\ and to ensure \fair treatment of indigents\
• “[t]he manifest purpose of requiring that [the applications for defense funding] be ex parte is to insure that the defendant will not have to make a premature disclosure of his case” and to ensure “fair treatment of indigents”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).