Legal Opinion
United States v. Wolfson
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 5, 2008No. S1 00 Cr. 628(JGK), S1 02 Cr. 1588(JGK)PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge.
The defendant has moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 to vacate his guilty verdict in 00 Cr. 628 (the “Five Stock Indictment”) and his guilty plea in 02 Cr. 1588 (the “Freedom Surf Indictment”) on the grounds that he was incompetent at the time of the trial and guilty plea. The defendant, represented by new counsel, claims that he was incompetent under the well established standard in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam) (“The defendant must have (1) ‘sufficient present ability…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Kimmelman v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Dusky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Godinez v. MoranSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wolfson v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- Wolfson v. BrunoDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- Wolfson v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- United States v. ChaudhryDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009
- United States v. ShenghurDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.