Legal Opinion

United States v. Harold Cunningham and Percy Barron

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided August 26, 1998No. 97-3017, 97-3044PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Chief Judge:

Appellants raise numerous challenges to their convictions arising from a 68-count indictment against them. Only a few of the issues raised merit our attention here.

We reject Appellant Harold Cunningham’s claim that the District Court erred in permitting him to represent himself at trial. The District Court’s findings that Cunningham’s decision to represent himself was knowing and voluntary met the criteria specified in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), for determining when a defendant may exercise his constitutional right…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  4. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Sullivan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1993

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. People v. KelloNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
  2. United States v. ChanthadaraCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000
  3. United States v. LawCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2008
  4. United States v. Shane BuchmeierCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
  5. United States v. Albert VerrecchiaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999

52 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