Skip navigation

U.S. v. Edmonson, No. 95-3310-SAC (D.Kan.) (922 F.Supp. 505) (March 29, 1996) (Judge Sam A. Crow)

The defendant argued that even though Rule 43(b) states that the continued presence of a defendant is not required and may be waived, the Rule provides that the defendant must be "initially present" and that such requirement was not complied with in the instant case - and that there was ...

 

Full article and associated cases available to subscribers.

As a digital subscriber to Punch and Jurists, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login