138 N.C. App. 521 - State v. Montgomery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Unlike waiver, which requires a knowing and intentional relinquishment of a known right, forfeiture results in the loss of a right regardless of the defendant’s knowledge thereof and irrespective of whether the defendant intended to relinquish the right.” United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092, 1100 (3d. Cir. 1995). A forfeiture results when “the state’s interest in maintaining an orderly trial schedule and the defendant’s negligence, indifference, or possibly purposeful delaying tactic, combine[] to justify a forfeiture of defendant’s right to counsel. . .” La Fave, Israel, & King Criminal Procedure, § 11.3(c) at 548 (1999). “[A] defendant who misbehaves in the courtroom may forfeit his constitutional right to be present at trial,” and “a defendant who is abusive toward his attorney may forfeit his right to counsel.” U.S. v. McLeod, 53 F.3d 322, 325 (11th Cir. 1995).”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 241 N.C. App. 657 - State v. Reaves · 245 N.C. App. 452 - State v. Blakeney

2. “A defendant must be granted a reasonable time in which to obtain counsel of his own choosing, and must be granted a continuance to obtain counsel of his own choosing where, through no fault of his own, he is without counsel.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 241 N.C. App. 657 - State v. Reaves · 245 N.C. App. 452 - State v. Blakeney

3. “In the present case, defendant was afforded ample opportunity over the course of fifteen months, to obtain counsel. He was twice appointed counsel as an indigent; twice he released his appointed counsel and retained private counsel. Apparently dissatisfied with Mr. Duncan, and upset at Mr. Duncan’s inability to secure additional continuances of his trial, defendant was disruptive in the courtroom on two occasions, resulting in the trial being delayed. After being advised by [the trial court] that the case would not be further continued and that Mr. Duncan would not be permitted to withdraw, defendant refused to cooperate with Mr. Duncan and assaulted him, resulting in an additional month’s delay in the trial. Such purposeful conduct and tactics to delay and frustrate the orderly processes of our trial courts simply cannot be condoned. Defendant, by his own conduct, forfeited his right to counsel and the trial court was not required to determine ... that defendant had knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily waived such right before requiring him to proceed pro se.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. Tommy Holmes