Legal Opinion

In Re Grayson

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 10, 1966No. Crim. 4016PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFriedman, J.

Habeas corpus, attacking a 1956 conviction of second degree robbery. Like the petitioners in In re Van Brunt (3 Crim. 3996, 4003) ante, p. 96 [51 Cal.Rptr. 136], this day filed, the petitioner appeared without counsel at his preliminary examination and made a courtroom confession. In this case, however, before permitting the accused to take the stand, the magistrate fully and fairly informed him of his right to legal representation, including court-appointed counsel, warned him that any statement could be used against him and ascertained that he did not want an attorney. 1 Petitioner then…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. People v. MattsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  2. In Re JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  3. In Re JamesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  4. People v. ElliotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  5. In re LeviCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. People v. SullivanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  2. People v. NormanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  3. In Re FresquezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  4. People v. HildabrandtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  5. People v. BillettsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API