United States v. Louis Joseph Marion Marvin Ives
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis Joseph Marion Marvin IVES, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Our opinion in this case, 504 F.2d 935 , was filed August 9, 1974. Ives petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which was granted, 421 U.S. 944 , 95 S.Ct. 1671 , 44 L.Ed.2d 97 .
Thereafter, the Court ordered “that the judgment of the said United States Court of Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, vacated; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 , 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975).”
See 421 U.S. 944 , 95 S.Ct. 1671 , 44 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975).
An examination of Drope makes clear that the only issues which the Court has directed us to consider further are found in part II of our opinion. Therefore, we reinstate parts I, III and IV of our opinion.
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings pertaining to the issues contained in part II of our opinion in light of Drope , as well as DeKaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1976) (en banc).
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that a defendant may forfeit the privilege to testify through conduct)
-
("A defendant has no more right to take the stand and 'testify in a way degrading the judicial system than he has to rob a bank or to assault a constable"')
-
(trial court properly removed continually disruptive and violent defendant from the courtroom, but ordered the installation of special equipment in defendant’s jail cell that allowed him to hear the proceedings and to communicate with his counsel during the trial)
Cited by 29 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.