United States v. John Theodore Glick

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the judge’s bare assertion that the jury could recommend leniency” in absence of counsel was “highly prejudicial”
• holding that \the judge's bare assertion that the jury could recommend leniency\ in absence of counsel was \highly prejudicial\
• noting that in appropriate cases application of the harmless error rule may not require reversal
• prejudice of defendant’s absence compounded because “volatile instructions on leniency were erroneous”
• “This is not a case ... where supplemental instructions on an issue of law delivered out of the presence of the defendant could be considered harmless because they merely repeated instructions previously given in his presence . . ”
• terming right an “unequivocal mandate”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).