Full text
Rose v. United States

Loading…
Opinion
430 U.S. 908 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 28, 1977
Full text
Rose v. United States
Idaho Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1989
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 3, 1988
Parentheticals
holding that “a restriction on a defendant’s right to consult with his attorney during a brief routine recess is constitutionally impermissible,” and reversing the conviction of a co-defendant witness ordered not to talk to her lawyer during an overnight recess
grave doubts whether brief restrictions during trial recesses can be squared with Geders; conviction reversed on other grounds
mere discrepancy between dates of conspiracy contained in the order of extradition and those in the indictment not a violation of the principal of specialty
defendant arrested without warrant retained in custody more than twenty hours without filing of formal charge in violation of statute requiring release if no charge brought within twenty hours of seizure
blanket restriction imposed during lunch recess
per se rule applied prospectively