United States v. Martin
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
189 F.3d 547 (1999)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Henry Martin (defendant) was on trial for a bank robbery. Before Martin’s trial, he claimed he could not afford an attorney because he was indigent and requested a free attorney be appointed to him. As a defense to the charge of bank robbery during trial, however, Martin claimed that he was financially secure and therefore had no motive to rob the bank. During Martin’s testimony about his financial security, the trial judge asked questions to clarify Martin’s inconsistencies about his financial situation. Following Martin’s testimony, the judge instructed the jury that they should make no inference from the judge’s questioning of Martin. The judge also posed questions of other witnesses, including those of the prosecution. The judge claimed that he was questioning the witness to protect the integrity of the program that provided free attorneys for indigent defendants. Martin appealed his conviction, claiming that the judge’s questioning of him unfairly prejudiced the jury.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Manion, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.