Legal Opinion
United States v. Farrah
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided January 16, 2001No. CRIM. 3:98CR146 AWTPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
THOMPSON, District Judge.
Defendant, Rhonda M. Farrah, having been found guilty by a jury on all charges, moved for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. She contended (i) that her trial counsel had an undisclosed conflict of interest arising from his involvement in other litigation against the government; (ii) that there was a total breakdown of the attorney-client relationship during the trial; (iii) that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the trial; and (iv) that the court failed to made an adequate…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Kimmelman v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Thomas McKee v. David Harris, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, Stormville, New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
- United States v. Chaim LevyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Paul Peter Solina, Jr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. CaramadreDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 2013
- United States v. PetersonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2002
- United States v. FarrahCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001