United States v. James Oakey

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “where a request to proceed pro se is untimely, a court may, in its discretion, deny the motion” (emphasis added)
• concluding that “where a request to proceed pro se is untimely, a court may, in its discretion, deny the motion” (emphasis added)
• stating that hybrid representation is disfavored because it allows a defendant to address the jury as counsel without being cross-examined as defendant
• finding no error in denial of “ambiguous” request to proceed pro se made prior to fourth day of trial
• “The decision to grant or deny ‘hybrid representation’ lies solely within the discretion of the trial court.”
• request properly denied in part because it was ambiguous

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).