Legal Opinion
United States v. Marvin Neal Smith
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 15, 1986No. 84-1262PublishedCited by 69 opinions
1Per curiam
Marvin Neal Smith was indicted and tried for armed robbery of a savings and loan association in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) (1982). On the second day of his three day trial, after thirteen of fifteen prosecution witnesses had testified, Smith requested permission to represent himself. The court denied the request on the grounds that it was untimely, would result in delay and was made for the tactical purpose of delay. Smith was convicted and timely appeals. We affirm.
A defendant has a constitutional right to proceed pro se. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 832, 95 S.Ct.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Costello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- United States v. Winston Bryant McConneyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Jerome M. Armant v. Joe MarquezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by69 opinions
- People v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Vernon Jackson v. Eddie YlstCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Benjamin Adams v. Midge Carroll, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Melvin Frank SchaffCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Bernard Lee Hamilton v. Daniel Vasquez, Warden of San Quentin the Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.