Sean Wright v. Michael Bowersox

How courts have described this case

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

• “it would not be an unreasonable determination of clearly established federal law for the state court to decline to impose a heightened standard of competency, as Edwards announced no such requirement.”
• “Edwards did not announce a new constitutional rule for determining competency when a defendant wishes to waive his right to counsel; it merely allows, but does not require, states to have a heightened standard.”
• “Edwards did not announce a new constitutional rule for determining competency when a defendant wishes to waive his right to counsel; it merely allows, but does not require, states to have a heightened standard.”
• “Edwards did not announce a new constitutional rule for determining competency when a defendant wishes to waive his right to counsel; it merely allows, but does not require, states to have a heightened standard.”
• “A defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel must also be knowing and voluntary, but this is a separate and distinct inquiry from whether he is competent to waive his right to counsel.” (emphasis in the original)
• explaining the standard of review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).