State v. Lucas
Connecticut Superior Court
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant appeared in the trial court pro se. In his appeal, he has assigned error in the failure of the court to advise him of his constitutional rights and statutory privilege against self-incrimination and in its failure to give him an opportunity to cross-examine one Stevens, who was arrested with the defendant and whose trial followed that of the defendant.
The defendant finds no fault with the finding or with the conclusions but asserts as a matter of law that the court erred in respect to both his claims. It is evident that the procedure provided in Rule 7.29 of the Circuit Court…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cochran v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1960
- People v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
- State v. FienbergSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- State v. BellConnecticut Superior Court · 1962
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. KramerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Martin v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1988
- People v. GuiceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
- State v. AgrestaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1968