Legal Opinion
Barney Earl Crutchfield v. Louie L. Wainwright, Jim Smith
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided November 10, 1986No. 84-3508PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:
In this case, the en banc court decides the extent to which a trial court may instruct a criminal defendant not to confer with counsel during a recess which occurs during the defendant’s testimony.
During Barney Earl Crutchfield’s trial for armed robbery with a deadly weapon, the Florida trial judge instructed Crutch-field’s counsel not to talk with him about his testimony:
THE COURT: All right. We’re going to take a little break, Ladies and Gentlemen. We’ve been at it a little bit. And I see there’s a sigh of relief on some faces? Over here. Do not discuss this case,…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, AlabamaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1981
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Perry v. LeekeSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Omar Blanco, Cross-Appellant v. Harry K. Singletary, as Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1991
- United States v. George R. CavalloCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2015
- Abrams v. BarnettCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- State v. MebaneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.