United States v. Marie L. Ferreboeuf

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 defense attorney has implied authority for stipulation of element but cannot stipulate over a defendant’s objection
• holding that “no voluntariness inquiry was required in this case before accepting the stipulation”
• rejecting a rule requiring the trial judge to question defendants personally as to the voluntariness of any stipulation of crucial fact because that rule would needlessly delay and confuse the conduct of a typical trial
• “Ferreboeuf was not entitled to a jury composed only of persons who had no prior knowledge of her case.”
• “Unless a criminal defendant indicates objection at the time the stipulation is made, he or she is ordi- narily bound by such stipulation.”
• “Appellant asks that we make a rule requiring the trial court to question defendants personally as to the voluntariness of any stipulation of a crucial fact. This we decline to do.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).