United States v. James Buckles, A/K/A Jimmy Buckles

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that attorney using professional judgment to recommend that defendant plead guilty did not constitute coercion
• noting that the court could consider “the time, money, and effort the government would have to devote to reassembling witnesses and evidence that were allowed to scatter after” the guilty plea
• recognizing when a full Rule 11 plea colloquy and an evidentiary hearing were conducted on the matter of a defendant’s guilty plea, enough judicial resources had been expended on the case
• finding that “the district court was justified in considering the time, money, and effort the government would have to devote to reassembling witnesses and evidence that were allowed to scatter after the acceptance of the guilty plea.”
• explaining that, in determining the prejudice to the government, a court may consider “the time, money, and effort the government would have to devote to reassembling witnesses and evidence that were allowed to scatter after the acceptance of the guilty plea”
• explaining that, in determining the prejudice to the government, a court may consider “the time, money, and effort the government would have to devote to reassembling witnesses and evidence that were allowed to scatter after the acceptance of the guilty plea”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).