Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) It shall be the primary duty of the Public Defender to provide legal representation for any indigent defendant eligible for services under this article. Legal representation may be provided by the Public Defender, or, subject to the supervision of the Public Defender, by his deputy, by district public defenders, by assistant public defenders, or by panel attorneys as hereinafter provided for. (b) Legal representation shall be provided indigent defendants or parties in the following proceedings: (1) Any criminal or juvenile proceeding constitutionally requiring the presence of counsel prior to presentment before a commissioner or judge; (2) Criminal or juvenile proceedings, where the defendant is charged with a serious crime, before the District Court of Maryland, the various circuit courts within the State of Maryland, and the Court of Special Appeals; (3) Post conviction proceedings under Article 27, Annotated Code of Maryland, when the defendant has a right to counsel pursuant to Sec. 645A of that article; (4) Any other proceeding where possible incarceration pursuant to a judicial commitment of individuals in institutions of a public or a private nature may result; and (5) An involuntary termination of parental rights proceeding or a hearing under Sec. 5-319 of the Family Law Article, if the party is entitled to Public Defender representation under Sec. 5-323 of the Family Law Article. (d) Representation by the Office of the Public Defender, or by an attorney appointed”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. State

2. “"Almost every court that has addressed [the] issue [of appointing standby counsel], from the Supreme Court down, has expressed some concern over the practical implications of having standby counsel, and, indeed, there are real potential problems. The McKaskle Court noted one of them — overparticipation by counsel, thereby impinging upon both the reality and the appearance of self-representation. There is also the significant problem of confidentiality — how much attaches and to what does it attach— not to mention the extent to which standby counsel is obliged to blindly do the defendant’s bidding and the extent to which the defendant may later assert a claim for post conviction relief based on poor advice or the omission to give advice or perform some service.” Harris, 107 Md. App. at 419 , 668 A.2d at 948 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 277 Ill. App. 3d 1053 - People v. Williams

3. “does not mean that ... a defendant appearing pro se may not have a lawyer participate to any extent in the trial. Such participation may be permitted in the discretion of the presiding judge under his general power to control the conduct of the trial---- But in either case the participation never reaches the level of “representation” nor does the participant attain the status of “co-counsel.” When a defendant appears pro se, it is he who calls the shots albeit, perhaps, with the aid, advice and allocution of counsel in the discretion of the trial judge.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. State