United States v. James Thomas McBride

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the defendant had successfully invoked the right to self-representation where he knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel
• holding that the district court committed no plain error in not performing a second colloquy at sentencing where defendant waived the right to counsel at trial and forbade standby counsel from speaking on his behalf at sentencing
• noting that whether plain error or de novo review applies to challenges to a Faretta waiver remains an open question
• noting that whether plain error or de novo review applies to challenges to a Faretta waiver remains an open question
• observing an intra-circuit conflict but stating that other circuits “uniformly apply a de novo standard of review”
• noting the open question of whether plain error or de novo review applies to challenges to a Faretta waiver

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).