United States v. Arnold Gold

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a defendant’s competence to stand trial was “entirely separate” from the issue of whether he committed the alleged crime, and therefore suitable for immediate appellate review
• concluding that a defendant’s competence to stand trial was “entirely separate” from the issue of whether he committed the alleged crime, and therefore suitable for immediate appellate review
• holding commitment order under § 4241(d) was appealable under the collateral order doctrine in part because “nothing could recover for the defendant the time lost during his confine- ment”
• explaining that “a ruling that the defendant is competent and must proceed to trial” can “be effectively reviewed and remedied, if erroneous, on appeal from any final judgment against him”
• noting that “[wjhether or not the conviction were set aside, nothing could recover for the defendant the time lost during his confinement; probably no one could be held liable to him in damages for the loss of his liberty”
• permitting interlocutory appeals of commitment orders under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1) because such an “order of commitment has a sufficient degree of importance to warrant immediate review”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).