1 Cal. 3d 122 - In Re Tahl’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 1,246 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,321 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably 3 Cal. 3d 595 - People v. West (1970), 1 Cal. 4th 1132 - People v. Howard (1992)
48 federal appellate · 1,246 state decisions — followed in 22 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Stovall v. Denno · McCarthy v. United States · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Desist v. United States
Cited together with Boykin v. Alabama · 10 Cal. 3d 857 - In Re Yurko · 13 Cal. 3d 592 - Bunnell v. Superior Court · 19 Cal. 3d 315 - In Re Ronald E. · Brady v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,321 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This does not require the recitation of a formula by rote or the spelling out of every detail by the trial court. It does mean that the record must contain on its face direct evidence that the accused was aware, or made aware, of his right to confrontation, to a jury trial, and against self-incrimination, as well as the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea. Each must be enumerated and responses elicited from the person of the defendant. Because mere inference is no longer sufficient, the presence of an attorney cannot alone satisfy these requirements; as noted, the defendant in Boykin was represented by counsel.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“presume a waiver of these three important federal rights from a silent record.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“So far as one can make out from the Court's opinion, what is now in effect being held is that the prophylactic procedures of [Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] are substantially applicable to the States as a matter of federal constitutional due process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Davis v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.