Legal Opinion

State v. Berrysmith

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 11, 1997No. 36169-4-I, 35939-8-IPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKennedy, J.

Following an in camera hearing held outside Lionel Berrysmith’s presence on the day that his jury trial for delivery of cocaine was scheduled to begin, Berrysmith’s court-appointed attorney was permitted to withdraw on the ground that he could not dissuade Berry-smith from perjuring himself on the witness stand. In both his direct appeal and his personal restraint petition, Berrysmith contends that the in camera hearing was a critical stage of the proceedings because the motion to withdraw required the resolution of disputed facts, i.e., whether Berrysmith truly intended to commit perjury,…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  4. Kentucky v. StincerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. United States v. GagnonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. People v. DePalloNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
  2. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. AveryCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. AveryCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  4. State v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  5. State v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007

11 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