Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Alexander Eugenio Moskovits

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided June 25, 1996No. 94-1990 and 95-1048Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partStapleton, Circuit Judge

I join sections I and III of the court’s opinion, although I believe that a more detailed explanation is warranted regarding section III-B. I cannot join section II.

I

In section II, the court concludes that Moskovits’s waiver of his right to counsel cannot be said to be knowing and intelligent because the record fails to show that he was aware at the waiver hearing that his sentence after retrial could be greater than his vacated sentence. I agree that Moskovits could not knowingly and intelligently waive the right to counsel without knowing that he had something to lose in a retrial. Further,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Holloway v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. United States v. DunniganSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Satterwhite v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. United States v. Welty, John JacobCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
  5. Mary Kochton Appley v. Stuart West, Mary Kochton Appley v. National Republic Bank of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987

3 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