Legal Opinion
State v. Gibson
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 31, 1976No. 75-264PublishedCited by 293 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, J.
The sole assignment of error, in the loAver court as well as here, is that Robert Nolan Gibson was deprived by the trial court of his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel, as guaranteed him by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before passing on this ultimate question it is only proper to set forth the language used by both judges as well as Mr. Gibson as it pertains to the issue herein.
The following proceeding took place on April 15, 1974:
“MR. PATRICOFF: I will be here, your Honor. Mr. Gibson is before the court and I told him he would have the right:to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Von Moltke v. GilliesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
3Cited by293 opinions
- State v. JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. MartinOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. CassanoOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. Neyland (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. CassanoOhio Supreme Court · 2002
288 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.