MCNAMEE ET AL.

v.

STATE BAR COURT FOR THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Hardy v. State, 655 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
  …o. 2d 958, 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The best method to ascertain whether the waiver is validly given is to conduct a separate pretrial hearing so the record will support a waiver. Strozier v. Newsome, 926 F. 2d 1100, 1104 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 930, 112 S.Ct. 350, 116 L.Ed.2d 289 (1991). Specifically, before a trial judge determines whether an accused should be allowed to proceed pro se, the trial judge should consider whether the accused would be deprived of a fair trial based on the accused…
• Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967 (U.S. 1994)
  …n arbitrary thumb on death’s side of the scale, so we analyze aggravators for clarity, objectivity, and principled guidance. See Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U. S. 356 (1988); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980); see also Pensinger v. California, 502 U. S. 930, 931 (1991) (O’Connor, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (observing that California, like Mississippi, “requires its juries to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances”); Stringer, 503 U. S., at 231 (difference between “nonweighing” St…
• United States v. Cash, 47 F.3d 1083 (11th Cir. 1995)
  …d is for the trial court to conduct a pretrial hearing at which the accused is informed of the charges, basic trial procedures, and hazards of self-representation. Strozier v. Newsome, 926 F. 2d 1100, 1104 (11th Cir.) (“Strozier II”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 930, 112 S.Ct. 350, 116 L.Ed.2d 289 (1991). While a pretrial hearing is preferred, it is not required. Id. at 1105; see also Greene, 880 F. 2d at 1303 (a hearing is not essential, but “extremely beneficial”). The absence of a hearing will not give ri…