United States v. James H. McConnell and Raymond H. Starns

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that such areas of inquiry are \taken from the Supreme Court's opinion in Von Moltke \
• noting that testimony akin to bald assertion of defendant’s innocence lacks exculpatory value
• explaining that “[w]hile the proffered [] testimony does purport to be exculpatory, we find that it lacks substance” because it would “be little more illuminating than a simple assertion that [Defendant] was innocent”
• explaining that a motion for severance “would not have met the initial requirement of a showing of willingness to testify because [the defendant] conditioned his offer of testimony on his being tried first”
• noting that “it would be absurd . . . to believe that [the defendant] did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver” simply because “[t]he court did not literally inform” him of the charges and penalties and the dangers of self-representation
• noting that any prejudice to the defendant from not being able to present this testimony in a severed trial was “very small and greatly outweighed by the expense and administrative inconvenience of conducting two lengthy trials involving numerous witnesses rather than one consolidated trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).