California Court of Appeal· 2/23/1983

People v. Carroll

Citations

140 Cal. App. 3d 135
189 Cal. Rptr. 327
1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1422

How courts have described this case

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

excluding pro se defendant from the courtroom was reversible error; court could have found defendant unable to represent himself and appointed standby counsel
“[E]xcluding . . . a defendant representing himself was a fundamental error requiring reversal, because there was, then, no defense counsel present.”
exelusion of pro se defendant from the courtroom was \fundamental error requiring reversal without regard to prejudice\
pro se defendant’s removal from the courtroom, without other defense counsel present, was “fundamental error requiring reversal without regard to prejudice”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Danielson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.