United States v. Danny Davis

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the “mere accusation of coercion” does not create a conflict of interest
• finding that “[d]efense counsel’s silence at [the plea withdrawal motion] stage of the proceedings illustrates his actual conflict.”
• noting that the “mere accusation of coercion” does not create a conflict of interest
• explaining that “defense counsel’s perhaps honest assessment that Davis would be found guilty if he went to trial, and that failing to take the plea would result in Davis ‘losing everything,’ might constitute nothing more than competent advice”
• noting that defendant’s allegations that his attorney had threatened not to investigate the case if defendant did not plead guilty “placed his attorney in the position of having to defend himself, and potentially to contradict [the defendant], in open court”
• finding that “[d]efense counsel’s silence at [the plea withdrawal motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).