Leo Abby v. Carol Howe

How courts have described this case

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

• defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to use of defendant’s pre-arrest silence where defendant did not expressly invoke his right to remain silent
• defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to use of defendant’s pre-arrest silence where defendant did not expressly invoke his right to remain silent
• “Even after Gonzalez–Lopez, the discretion that trial courts hold over their calendars remains vast.”
• “Even after Gonzalez—Lopez, the discretion that trial courts hold over their calendars remains vast.”
• “The important point for purposes of resolving this case is that the Supreme Court has not held that a defendant’s right to counsel of choice necessarily is violated when his secondary retained counsel has a scheduling conflict precluding his or her attendance at trial.”
• “The important point for purposes of resolving this case is that the Supreme Court has not held that a defendant’s right to counsel of choice necessarily is violated when his secondary retained counsel has a scheduling conflict precluding his or her attendance at trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).