Matter of DeRosa v. Gong

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “trial judges should leave no room for doubt that the defendant has been issued a personal invitation to speak prior to sentencing”
• holding that under: Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the right of allocution is personal to the defendant, and is not satisfied by affording counsel an opportunity to speak on the defendant’s behalf
• finding that the district court did not deny the defendant the allocution opportunity to which Rule 32(a
• holding that failure to afford a defendant the opportunity to speak to the sentencing court was a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(a), and constituted a denial of due process, yet stating that such an error could be harmless
• holding that failure to afford a defendant the opportunity to speak to the sentencing court was a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(a), and constituted a denial of due process, yet stating that such an error could be harmless
• holding defendant’s right to speak is personal, and not satisfied by defense counsel having the opportunity to speak

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).