LEE KLINGER VOLKSWAGEN, INC.

v.

CHRYSLER CORP. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (24 total)

• United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …rn whether he agreed with that statement and Platshorn responded affirmatively. Platshorn relies on the dissenting opinion in Wright v. Estelle, 572 F. 2d 1071, 1074 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc), adhering to panel opinion, 549 F. 2d 271, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1004, 99 S.Ct. 617, 58 L.Ed.2d 680 (1978). The dissenting opinion stated that an attorney may not use the threat of abandonment of his client in order to coerce him into not testifying in his own behalf, citing United States ex rel. Wilcox v. Johnson, 55…
• Washington v. Strickland, 693 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …2 F. 2d 1071, 1082 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (Godbold, J., dissenting) (strategic choice by counsel that deprives defendant of his constitutional right to testify, absent knowing waiver by defendant, is not effective assistance of counsel), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1004, 99 S.Ct. 617, 58 L.Ed.2d 680 (1978). Therefore, permissible trial strategy can never include the failure to conduct a reasonably substantial investigation into a defendant’s one plausible line of defense. See Ewing v. Williams, 596 F. 2d 391, 398-…
• United States v. Teague, 953 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1992)
  …ht to testify should be treated as fundamental. Although the Supreme Court has not expressly addressed this question, this is not the first time it has come before this court. In Wright v. Estelle, 572 F. 2d 1071 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1004, 99 S.Ct. 617, 58 L.Ed.2d 680 (1078), the former Fifth Circuit was presented with the issue of whether a defendant has a fundamental right to testify. During Wright’s trial, a conflict arose between Wright and his court-appointed counsel about wheth…