Citation network
Wheat Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 23, 1988
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
-
Wheat v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 486 U.S. 153 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Wheat v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) Wheat v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In United States v. MorrisonSearch
-
an unaided layman may have little skill in arguing the law or in coping with an intricate procedural system, Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
the right to the assistance of counsel, by appointment if necessary, in a trial for any serious crime. Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers. See Morris v. SlappySearch
-
of interest must take adequate steps to ascertain whether the conflicts warrant separate counsel. See also Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
in the case. 18 U.S.C.App. p. 650. This suggestion comports with our instructions in Holloway and in Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
impaired as a result, the defendant may well claim that he did not receive effective assistance. See, e.g., Burger v. KempSearch
-
defendants who have specifically waived the right to conflict-free counsel. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Tonaldi v. ElrodSearch
-
United States v. VowterasSearch
-
that defendants be separately represented. As the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated in United States v. DolanSearch
-
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Doe, 781 F.2d 238, 250-251 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Roe v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. FlanaganSearch
-
Our holding in Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 53 (1932). This Court has reiterated this principle on frequent occasions. See, e.g., Chandler v. FretagSearch
-
Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
requires and results from the application of a legal standard to the established facts of a case. See, e.g., Townsend v. SainSearch
-
U. S. 591 , 455 U. S. 597 , and n. 10 (1982). For this reason, the Court in Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
determination becomes even more apparent when its constitutional significance is taken into account. Cf. Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
risk of a serious conflict of interest, and thus will not invariably imperil the prospect of a fair trial. See Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
Walters v. NationalSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Wheat v. UnitedSearch
-
Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
See Morris v. SlappySearch
-
Tonaldi v. ElrodSearch
-
United States v. DolanSearch
-
Roe v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Bose Corp. v. ConsumersSearch
-
See Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
Sumner v. MataSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial