STEPHENS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Ponto, 454 F.2d 657 (7th Cir. 1971)
  …e jurisdiction is lacking under § 3731. The Second Circuit in United States v. Dooling, 406 F. 2d 192 (2d Cir. 1969), cert, denied, Persico v. United States, 395 U.S. 911, 89 S.Ct. 1744, 23 L.Ed.2d 224 (1969), reh’g denied, Persico v. United States, 400 U.S. 874, 91 S.Ct. 95, 27 L.Ed.2d 112 (1970), held that a petition for mandamus may be granted even if the government is barred from appeal under § 3731. The Supreme Court indicated in Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, at 97, 88 S.Ct. 269, at 274, 19 L.Ed.…
• United States v. Ponto, 454 F.2d 647 (7th Cir. 1971)
  …frank recognition that our answer to this elusive question may be wrong, * * at 622. The subsequent definition by the Supreme Court of a “motion in bar” in Sisson and Weller differed from the one in Fix. The Supreme Court dismissed the Fix appeal, 400 U.S. 874, 91 S.Ct. 111, 27 L.Ed.2d 112, apparently upon agreement by both of the parties in the case. See Rule 60, Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, because of subsequent developments, we cannot rely on Fix as authority in th…
• United States v. Johnson, 659 F.2d 415 (4th Cir. 1981)
  …him, and Johnson replied, “No, Your Honor. I can’t afford that either.” Merely asking a defendant if he wants an attorney is inadequate to inform the defendant of his right to counsel. See Smith v. Lane, 426 F. 2d 767, 769 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 874, 91 S.Ct. 103, 27 L.Ed.2d 109 (1970). Although the court’s inquiry may have made Johnson aware in an abstract sense of his right to counsel, Johnson’s comments indicate that he perceived his right to be conditioned on his ability to pay, whether he…

  ← 1 / 2 →