Commonwealth v. Marshall, S.

How courts have described this case

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

• analyzing giving of supplemental instructions to jury when defendant’s counsel was absent as violation of Rule 43 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
• analyzing giving of supplemental instructions to jury when defendant's counsel was absent as violation of Rule 43 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
• jury should have been admonished “that the jury had no sentencing function and should reach its verdict without regard to what sentence might be imposed”
• \jury [has] no sentencing function and should reach its verdict without regard to what sentence might be imposed\
• a criminal defendant has the right to be present from the time that a jury is impaneled until it is discharged after rendering the verdict
• “[A] violation of Rule 43 may in some circumstances be harmless error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).