United States v. McKeighan

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding there was no error in not investigating whether jurors were sleeping when defense counsel did not ask the court to investigate or request the substitution of alternate jurors
• stating that, if a conflict of interest exists, “the attorney usually may be excluded unless the likelihood and severity of the conflict are minimal compared to the defendant’s interest in obtaining counsel of choice”
• noting that the federal courts have an ethical interest in “ensuring that criminal trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession and that legal proceedings appear fair to all who observe them”
• observing that \[a] defendant could be deprived of the Fifth Amendment 4 right to due process or the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury if jurors fall asleep and are unable to fairly consider the defendant's case\
• declining to recognize a Bivens remedy for claimed constitutional violations in the immigration context in light of the availability of habeas corpus as one component of a comprehensive adjudicative and remedial process
• “Only improper or ‘erroneous’ deprivations of a defendant’s counsel of choice violate the Sixth Amendment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).