Legal Opinion

State v. Worthy

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 20, 1998No. C8-96-1928, C3-96-1948PublishedCited by 69 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GILBERT, Justice.

In this case, respondents Barnell Worthy and Marvin McKinnis voluntarily and without justification absented themselves from the courtroom after their criminal trial had commenced. On the morning the trial started, both Worthy and McKinnis attempted to delay the proceeding by firing their court-appointed attorneys without good cause. They then used the court’s denial of their request for a continuance to obtain private attorneys as an excuse to refuse to remain in the courtroom. On appeal, Worthy and McKin-nis asserted that under such circumstances, the trial court was…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

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

3Cited by69 opinions

  1. State v. BrooksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
  2. State v. CaulfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
  3. State v. BlomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
  4. State v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2002
  5. State v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of Kansas · 2008

64 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