United States v. Charles Wesley Arlt, Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the defendant was under no obligation to renew his request to proceed pro se when the trial judge had categorically rejected four previous requests
• approving principles adopted in Brown v. Wainwright, 17 665 F.2d 607 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc)
• the defendant repeatedly and forcefully asserted his right to proceed pro se beginning six months before trial
• \The Supreme Court's decision in Godinez explicitly forbids any attempt to measure a defendant's competency to waive the right to counsel by evaluating his ability to represent himself [in a tactical sense].\
• the defendant repeatedly and forcefully asserted his right to proceed pro se beginning six months before trial
• “A motion to proceed pro se is timely if made before the jury is impaneled, unless it is shown to be a tactic to secure delay.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).