Phillips v. Day

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[i]nasmuch as appellant’s handwritten note sought to dismiss trial counsel and replace them with retained counsel, a public defender, or himself, appellant’s communication was not an unequivocal assertion of his right to represent himself”
• finding that as appellant “sought to dismiss trial counsel and replace them with retained counsel, a public defender, or himself, appellant’s communication was not an unequivocal assertion of his right to represent himself”
• finding that as appellant “sought to dismiss trial counsel and replace them with retained counsel, a public defender, or himself, appellant’s communication was not an unequivocal assertion of his right to represent himself”
• failure to object at trial to purported violation of reciprocal discovery statute waived appellate review of issue
• “The right to testify on one’s own behalf in defense to a criminal charge is a fundamental constitutional right[.]”
• defendant's note to court asking to dismiss trial counsel and replace them with retained counsel, a public defender, or himself was not an unequivocal assertion of right to self-representation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).