Citation network
Indiana Vs. Edwards
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 2008
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Syllabus October Term, 2007 Indiana V. EdwardsSearch
-
himself deprived him of his constitutional right of self-representation under the Sixth Amendment and Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Supreme Court nonetheless affirmed the intermediate appellate court on the ground that Faretta and Godinez v. MoranSearch
-
s precedents frame the question presented, but they do not answer it. Dusky v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 362 U. S. 402 , and Drope v. MissouriSearch
-
of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel, see McKaskle v. WigginsSearch
-
Ginsburg, and Alito, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Indiana v. EdwardsSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Indiana V. EdwardsSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-208 Indiana, Petitioner V. AhmadSearch
-
s precedents, namely, Faretta , 422 U. S. 806 , and Godinez v. MoranSearch
-
standard, Dusky v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 362 U. S. 402 (1960) (per curiam) , and Drope v. MissouriSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
id ., at 834 (quoting Illinois v. AllenSearch
-
Faretta itself and later cases have made clear that the right of self-representation is not absolute. See Martinez v. CourtSearch
-
referring to Illinois v. AllenSearch
-
s earlier statement in Massey v. MooreSearch
-
U. S., at 813, and n. 9 (citing 16 state-court decisions and two secondary sources). See, e.g ., Cappetta v. StateSearch
-
Allen v. CommonwealthSearch
-
See also Sell v. UnitedSearch
-
Wheat v. UnitedSearch
-
N. E. 2d, at 258, n. 4 (alterations omitted). Indiana v. EdwardsSearch
-
Scalia, J., Dissenting Indiana V. EdwardsSearch
-
who knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to counsel the right to proceed pro se at his trial. Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
pro se instead of through counsel receives a fair trial that comports with the Fourteenth Amendment. Godinez v. MoranSearch
-
of self-representation could also be seen as a part of the traditional meaning of the Due Process Clause. See Martinez v. CourtSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
does so. McKaskle v. WigginsSearch
-
testimony, States may not provide for unconfronted testimony to be used at trial so long as it is reliable. Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
Gonzalez-Lopez , supra , at 145 (quoting Maryland v. CraigSearch
-
Illinois v. AllenSearch
-
Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
see also Florida v. NixonSearch
-
the Sixth Amendment and Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Faretta and Godinez v. MoranSearch
-
Dusky v. UnitedSearch
-
and Drope v. MissouriSearch
-
Indiana, Petitioner V. AhmadSearch
-
and Godinez v. MoranSearch
-
See Martinez v. CourtSearch
-
Massey v. MooreSearch
-
Cappetta v. StateSearch
-
Sell v. UnitedSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment. Godinez v. MoranSearch
-
of the Due Process Clause. See Martinez v. CourtSearch
-
Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
Maryland v. CraigSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial