United States v. Joseph Lee Lachance, Sonia Luz Meza-De Cepeda, and John Thomas Bowles

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no error in judge’s comment to the jury that the pro se defendant “had an opportunity to testify under oath where he could have been cross-examined by the prosecution. He chose not to do that, and therefore, anything he says is not evidence in the case”
• “the right to counsel and the right to proceed pro se exist in the alternative,” not simultaneously
• “[T]he right to counsel and the right to proceed pro se exist in the alternative.”
• “[T]he right to counsel and the right to proceed pro se exist in the alternative and the decision to permit a defendant to proceed in a hybrid fashion rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.”
• “It is the law of this circuit that the right to counsel and the right to proceed pro se exist in the alternative and the decision to permit a defendant to proceed in hybrid fashion rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.”
• \It is the law of this circuit that the right to counsel and the right to proceed pro se exist in the alternative and the decision to permit a defendant to proceed in a hybrid fashion rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).