United States v. Frederick Keith Singleton’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States of America v. Clinton Bernard Frazier-El (2000), United States v. Noah (1997)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Anders v. California · Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Penson v. Ohio
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[“]A trial court evaluating a defendant’s request to represent himself must traverse ... a thin line between improperly allowing the defendant to proceed pro se, thereby violating his right to counsel, and improperly having the defendant proceed with counsel, thereby violating his right to self-representation. A skillful defendant could manipulate this dilemma to create reversible error. [”]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e review the sufficiency of a waiver of the right to counsel by evaluating the complete profile of the defendant and the circumstances of his decision as known to the trial court at the time. This determination can be made by examining the record as a whole.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“And if a defendant first asserts his right to self-representation after trial has begun, the right may have been waived.”). Bush's motion in this case was filed about a week before trial, and was therefore timely. 6 . Bush also contends, without citation, that the motion to sever cannot permit any time under the Speedy Trial Act to be excluded because he did not consent to the filing of the motion by defense counsel. This argument lacks merit. 7 . The Government notes that we have never held what constitutes a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.