Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Louis Joseph Marion Marvin Ives

547 F.2d 1100

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1977-02-22
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • 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

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Louis Joseph Marion Marvin Ives. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
35 opinions
UNITED STATES v. IVES,547 F.2d 1100(9th Cir. 1976)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LOUIS JOSEPH MARION MARVIN
IVES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 73-1726.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 15, 1976.
Certiorari Denied February 22, 1977.
Mark E. Vovos (argued), of Bovey Vovos, Spokane, Wash., Kelly Hancock (argued), Omak, Wash., for defendant-appellant.

Robert S. Linnell, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington; William N. Goodwin, District Judge.
Before DUNIWAY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and WOLLENBERG,fn*District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] 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.

[2] 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 ofDrope v.Missouri,420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975)."See421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975).

[3] An examination ofDropemakes 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.

[4] 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 ofDrope,as well asDeKaplany v. Enomoto,540 F.2d 975(9th Cir. 1976) (en banc).Page 1379
  1. Honorable Albert C. Wollenberg, United States District Judge, Northern District of California, sitting by designation. ↩