Legal Opinion

Bansal v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

Decided June 29, 2005No. 09-04-023 CRPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOLLIS HORTON, Justice.

The issue in this case is whether the defendant in a criminal case is entitled to represent himself at trial. The trial court refused to allow the defendant to represent himself and attempted to rectify the mistake by conducting a second trial wherein the defendant did represent himself. Devendrá Prakash Babulal Bansal, the defendant, was accused of harassment. The jury in the first trial, where Bansal was represented by counsel, and the jury in the second trial, where he represented himself, both found him guilty. Bansal successfully challenged the verdict in…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Antonio Riojas, Jr. v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2004
  2. Joe R. Brooks v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2006
  3. Joe R. Brooks v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2006
  4. Joe R. Brooks v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2006
  5. Margaret Rose Haule v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2006

1 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