ROBINSON ET VIR

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (40 total)

• Brown v. State, 515 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1987)
  …agree with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that administrative confinement of prison inmates does not result in the evils associated with arrest as described in Marion. See United States v. Mills, 704 F. 2d 1553 (11th Cir.1983), cert, denied, 467 U.S. 1243, 104 S.Ct. 3517, 82 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984); United States v. Duke, 527 F. 2d 386 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 426 U.S. 952, 96 S.Ct. 3177, 49 L.Ed.2d 1190 (1976). The trial court, in the instant case, properly found that the administrative confinement did…
• King Brooks v. State, 703 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
  …r the law in this circuit, the right to appointed counsel and the right to proceed pro se exist in the alternative and the decision to permit a defendant to proceed in hybrid fashion rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.”), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1243, 104 S.Ct. 3517, 82 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984). The Eleventh Circuit has held that a defendant’s election to act as co-counsel may waive any earlier asserted rights of self-representation. Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F. 2d 803, 809 (11th Cir.), cert. den…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985)
  …d that consequently would not have to be disclosed to the defendant under the Court’s view. See, e. g., United States v. Sperling, 726 F. 2d 69, 71-72 (CA2 1984) (prior statement disclosing motive of key Government witness to testify), cert. denied, 467 U. S. 1243 (1984); King v. Ponte, 717 F. 2d 635 (CA1 1983) (prior inconsistent statements of Government witness); see also United States v. Oxman, 740 F. 2d 1298, 1311 (CA3 1984) (addressing “disturbing” prosecutorial tendency to withhold information because o…