McGraw v. Andrus

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that courts may refuse pro se representation “after trial has begun” when the litigant engages in “disruptive behavior”
• rejecting argument that conscientious jurors may feel compelled to find guilt “to defer to an assumption of necessity that is contrary to reality”
• upholding jury instruction that it is no defense to unlawful entry that person acted from sincere religious motives or believed conduct justified by a higher authority
• acknowledging trial court has discretion to permit self-representation if not asserted until after trial has begun
• refusal to give jury nullification instruction not error although jury has prerogative to disregard legal requirements in reaching verdict
• refusal to give jury nullification instruction not error although jury has prerogative to disregard legal requirements in reaching verdict

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).