United States v. Luepke

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a presumption of prejudice \avoids our speculation about what the defendant might have said had the right been properly afforded him\
• explaining that a presumption of prejudice “avoids our speculation about what the defendant might have said had the right been properly afforded him”
• holding that district court plainly erred in stating that it was “adjudged the defendant is committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for imprisonment for a term of 240 moths” before inviting defendant to address the court
• noting that, although “the right of allocution is deeply rooted in our legal tradition and an important, highly respected right, it is neither constitutional nor jurisdictional” [internal quotation marks omitted]
• explaining that a presumption of prejudice “avoids our speculation about what the defen- dant might have said had the right been properly afforded him”
• explaining that a presumption of prejudice “avoids our speculation about what the defen- dant might have said had the right been properly afforded him”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).