United States v. Jamie Jones

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a pro se defendant who “suggest[ed] that he did not want his case continued and that his attorney did not ‘keep [his] trial within the fast and speedy trial clause’” waived his Speedy Trial Act claim
• holding no conflict of interest where a defendant claimed “he did not agree to continuances and did not want to give up his speedy trial rights”
• concluding no abuse of discretion in denying request without inquiry because the Defendant’s motion “thoroughly explained his reasons for requesting a new lawyer, and the district court had all the information necessary to make a ruling”
• finding no abuse of discretion despite lack of inquiry into substitution motion where, inter alia, “a stern command to defense counsel to meet with [defendant] sufficiently addressed [defendant’s] communication frustrations”
• finding no prejudice from the jury’s viewing of video evidence during deliberations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).