Legal Opinion

George Jones M-2329 v. Charles Zimmerman

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided November 28, 1986No. 85-3637PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

In this habeas corpus case, petitioner alleges that the state trial court was required to rule specifically on the voluntariness of an inculpatory statement even though he denied making it. He also alleges a deprivation of the right to counsel of his choice because the prosecution demanded that the lawyer represent either petitioner or a co-defendant. We conclude that by denying suppression of the statement the state judge implicitly ruled it was voluntary, and similarly that failure to submit the issue to the jury was not constitutionally erroneous. We…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Townsend v. SainSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Harrington v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Rose v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Lego v. TwomeySupreme Court of the United States · 1972

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. United States v. Oscar ClemonsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
  2. United States v. Yu KikumuraCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
  3. Strenten Vujosevic v. John R. Rafferty, Superintendent of Rahway State Prison, and W. Carey Edwards, Attorney General of New JerseyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
  4. Barkley Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USPCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017
  5. United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989

18 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