United States v. Reggie Beckton

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that defendant has both a constitutional right to counsel and a constitutional right to represent himself, but that those rights are \mutually exclusive\
• concluding that it was “eminently reasonable” for the district court to require “Beckton, like all other witnesses, to testify in [a Q&A] manner”
• explaining that trial management decisions such as \whether [a pro se defendant's] testimony shall be in the form of a free narrative or responses to specific questions\ are discretionary (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 611 advisory committee's note)
• “Accordingly, the district court was well within the proper exercise of [its] discretion in denying Beckton’s request[] that, as a pro se [litigant], he be permitted to testify in narrative form.” (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[L]ike all other litigants, [pro se parties] must comply with substantive and procedural court[] rules.” (citation omitted)
• “[L]ike all other litigants, [pro se parties] must comply with substantive and procedural court[] rules.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).