United States v. Lilly Schmidt

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 district court’s refusal to change counsel on the eve of the trial did not mean that the defendant was coerced into self-representation
• holding that a defendant was not impermissibly forced to proceed pro se merely because the court declined to appoint new counsel on the eve of trial
• holding that “elaborate” and “extensive” gov- eminent sting operation in which a law enforcement agent “posed as a hit man” and “federal agents actually conducted a controlled [prison] breakout” did not constitute outrageous government conduct
• holding that a Sixth Amendment waiver in similar circumstances was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
• explaining that a district 51 1 court “may not compel defendant to proceed with incompetent 2 counsel”
• noting that counsel’s “tactical decision” not to call witnesses – “even ones [who] might offer exculpatory evidence” – is “ordinarily not viewed as a lapse in professional representation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).