United States v. Christopher D. Jones

How courts have described this case

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

• requiring a “penetrating and comprehensive examination of all the circumstances” but acknowledging that such an inquiry “is not required in every court”
• requiring a “clear and unequivocal” selection of self- representation in order to validly waive counsel
• noting that a \set\ of \model questions derived from\ the Benchbook \provide[s] a 'useful framework' in deciding whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily wishes to proceed pro se \ (quoting United States v. Peppers , 302 F.3d 120 , 136 (3d Cir. 2002) )
• rejecting other circuits’ approach of reviewing record as a whole and instead requiring “[a] complete, on-the-record colloquy with the defendant” as “a significantly better way of protecting the right to counsel than the whole-record approach”
• issue of later revoking request for pro se representation not included in long list of model questions for conducting the “penetrating and comprehensive” Faretta examination required in the Third Circuit
• “A complete, on-the-record colloquy with the defendant . . . is in our view a significantly better way of protecting the right to counsel than the whole-record approach.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).