United States v. Vann

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 brief warning about self-representation prior to sentencing was sufficient in light of a thorough colloquy prior to trial three months earlier
• noting that some courts have found a defendant’s failure to rebut the government’s nondiscriminatory reasons amounts to forfeiture or waiver but applying “a less deferential standard”
• \We reflect on the totality of the circumstances to decide whether a defendant has knowingly [and intelligently] decided to proceed pro se .\
• “We reflect on the totality of the circumstances to decide whether a defendant has knowingly [and intelligently] decided to proceed pro se.”
• “We reflect on the totality of the circumstances to decide whether a defendant has knowingly [and intelligently] decided to proceed pro se.”
• “Medina-Copete is the exception not the rule, and, as noted, we have consistently allowed police officers to testify as to conclusions deriving from their expertise and experience.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).