MCCULLEY ET AL.

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Greschner, 802 F.2d 373 (10th Cir. 1986)
  …location. II R. 153. We find no error in the rulings under § 3006A(e)(l).3 See United States v. Deutsch, 599 F. 2d 46, 49 & n. 5 (5th Cir.) (applying “clear error” standard in reviewing trial court’s findings of fact under § 3006A), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935, 100 S.Ct. 283, 62 L.Ed.2d 194 (1979). Further, the defendants contend that the ruling violated their Fifth Amendment right to due process. The Supreme Court has long held that indigents are entitled to the “basic tools of an adequate defense.” Bri…
• United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1983)
  …never be put to that test, if an uncounseled defendant unwisely decides to plead guilty or to forego an appeal after a conviction. We do not regard the suggestion to this effect in United States v. Deutsch, 599 F. 2d 46, 48 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935, 100 S.Ct. 283, 62 L.Ed.2d 194 (1979), as “fanciful,” despite the government’s assertion to us that it is. We therefore agree that an order separating a defendant from his appointed counsel may, as a practical matter, never be reviewed unless we all…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Smith, 633 F.2d 739 (7th Cir. 1980)
  …es, 352 U.S. 565, 77 S.Ct. 550, 1 L.Ed.2d 593 (1957); Roberts v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 339 U.S. 844, 70 S.Ct. 954, 94 L.Ed. 1326 (1950); United States v. Deutsch, 599 F. 2d 46 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935, 100 S.Ct. 283, 62 L.Ed.2d 194 (1979); United States v. Durka, 490 F. 2d 478 (7th Cir. 1973); nor is it one in which the United States, as a party in a criminal action, objects to the payment of costs, United States v. Rogalsky, 575 F. 2d 457 (3d Ci…