United States v. Charles Stubbs

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that the defendant “clearly and unequivocally” invoked his right to self-representation when he told the court that “I’m going to do my own thing . . . I’m going to represent myself as of now” (alteration in original)
• determining that the district court erred when allowed a defendant to proceed pro se because, among other things, during the Faretta colloquy, the defendant indicated that he had not understood the court’s warning, and the court did not attempt to clarify this confusion
• noting with respect to a mid-trial request to proceed pro se that “the defendant’s motives may still be relevant as they may shed light on whether the defendant’s waiver has been made knowingly and intelligently”
• finding the Court “must assess the knowledge and information which the officers possessed at the time of arrest, coupled with the factual occurrences immediately precipitating the arrest.”
• noting with respect to a mid- trial request to proceed pro se that \the defendant’s motives may still be relevant as they may shed light on whether the defendant’s waiver has been made knowingly and intelligently\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).