Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Flanagan Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 21, 1984

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

61 entries 4 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. Barker Vs. Wingo US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1972
  2. United States Vs. Garcia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1859
  3. United States Vs. Phillips US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1887
  4. Stack Vs. Boyle US Supreme Court · Nov 05, 1951
  5. Flanagan v. United
    Search
  6. States - 465 U.S. 259 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Flanagan v. United
    Search
  7. States, 465 U.S. 259 (1984) Flanagan v. United
    Search
  8. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay
    Search
  9. for a unanimous Court. JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
    Search
  10. because the disqualification order was appealable prior to trial as a collateral order within the meaning of Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  11. Cobbledick v. United
    Search
  12. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
    Search
  13. In a criminal case, the rule prohibits appellate review until conviction and imposition of sentence. Berman v. United
    Search
  14. and time-consuming appeals. It is crucial to the efficient administration of justice. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
    Search
  15. United States v. Hollywood
    Search
  16. accused of a serious crime is free on bail. It may also adversely affect the prospects for rehabilitation. See Barker v. Wingo
    Search
  17. of pretrial orders in criminal prosecutions to meet the Page 465 U. S. 266 requirements. See United States v. Hollywood
    Search
  18. Id. at 458 U. S. 266 (quoting United States v. MacDonald
    Search
  19. is independent of the issues to be tried, and the order becomes moot if review awaits conviction and sentence. Stack v. Boyle
    Search
  20. that is, not to be tried for the offense. Abney v. United
    Search
  21. about them -- that is, not to be tried for them. Helstoski v. Meanor
    Search
  22. not to be tried. Double jeopardy and speech or debate rights are sui generis in this regard. See United States v. MacDonald
    Search
  23. Id. at 435 U. S. 859 . See also United States v. Hollywood
    Search
  24. States, 309 U.S. at 309 U. S. 325 . See also Roche v. Evaporated
    Search
  25. choice is like, for example, Page 465 U. S. 268 the Sixth Amendment right to represent oneself. See Faretta v. California
    Search
  26. of the defendant's free choice independent of concern for the objective fairness of the proceeding. See McKaskle v. Wiggins
    Search
  27. is like the Sixth Amendment rights violated when a trial court denies appointment of counsel altogether, see Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  28. U. S. 335 (1963), or denies counsel's request to be replaced because of a conflict of interest, see Holloway v. Arkansas
    Search
  29. is known. In this respect, the right claimed by petitioners is analogous to the speedy trial right. In United States v. MacDonald
    Search
  30. of such expansion are great, and the potential rewards are small. Unlike an appeal of a bail decision, see Stack v. Boyle
    Search
  31. after long delay. The potential rewards of an immediate appeal are thus even smaller than they were in United States v. MacDonald
    Search
  32. supra, and in United States v. Hollywood
    Search
  33. grounds even though reversal of the orders would have led to dismissal of all or some charges. See also Roche v. Evaporated
    Search
  34. Heike v. United
    Search
  35. DiBella v. United
    Search
  36. Third Circuit have allowed immediate appeal of pretrial disqualifications of criminal defense counsel. United States v. Curcio
    Search
  37. United States v. Smith
    Search
  38. United States v. Agosto
    Search
  39. F.2d 965, 968, n. 1 (CA8), cert. denied after remand and affirmance sub nom. Gustafson v. United
    Search
  40. United States v. Hobson
    Search
  41. U.S. 906 (1982). The Ninth Circuit has held that such orders are not immediately appealable. United States v. Greger
    Search
  42. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
    Search
  43. U.S. Supreme Court Flanagan v. United
    Search
  44. of the Court. In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
    Search
  45. of Cohen v. Beneficial
    Search
  46. Berman v. United
    Search
  47. See Barker v. Wingo
    Search
  48. See United States v. Hollywood
    Search
  49. Abney v. United
    Search
  50. Helstoski v. Meanor
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial