Legal Opinion

United States v. Friel

District Court, D. Maine

Decided June 29, 2006No. CRIM.06-25-P-HPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS AND NOTICE CONCERNING DEFENDANT’S RECENT FILINGS

HORNBY, District Judge.

The defendant Dennis Friel has filed various pretrial motions. I rule on the motions as follows:

1. Motion for Rearraignment and a Rehearing on the Accused’s Detention Hearing Pursuant to Rule 58(3)(A) & (B) (Docket Item 97). The motion is DENIED. Fed.R.Crim.P. 58 has no bearing upon the felony charges the defendant is facing. He was arraigned under Fed. R.Crim.P. 10. Since he entered a not guilty plea, there was no requirement that an Article III judge take the plea. See United States v. Smith, 424…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. McKaskle v. WigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. United States v. David L. Smith, United States of America v. Herbert A. BatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  4. United States v. Gomez-RosarioCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2005
  5. Carter v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1975

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. FrielDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API