170 F. Supp. 2d 327 - Dallio v. Spitzer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The court did not adequately follow the statutory mandate of CPL 710.60(6), which requires it to set forth on the record its findings of fact, its conclusions of law, and the reasons for its determination. Although the court, at the Huntley hearing, made some findings of fact and conclusions of law, they were incomplete and not specific enough for this court to review the nature and basis of the court’s determinations as to the defendant’s arguments concerning his alleged invocation of his right to counsel, his right to remain silent, and the issues of credibility in connection therewith.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dearstyne v. Mazzuca

2. “[a]lthough... there is no rigid procedure for advising a defendant about the ramifications of proceeding pro se, Faretta requires, at a minimum, that there must be an explanation of the attendant dangers and disadvantages.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dallio v. Spitzer

3. “to warn Dallio of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the outcome of the hearing”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dallio v. Spitzer