Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 Ind. App. 535 - Wallace v. State

172 Ind. App. 535 - Wallace v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
September 2008
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2008 · most notably Owen v. State (1978), Anderson v. State (1977)

29 state decisions

1501977198019902000decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate, or those of feeble intellect. If in any case, civil or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party by counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may not be doubted that such a refusal would be a denial of a hearing, and, therefore, of due process in the constitutional sense."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ . . . [A] trial court must approach those stages of a proceeding at which fundaméntal constitutional rights attach with great concern and caution and with an appreciation for the need to make' a clear record of what takes place. This Court cannot infer a voluntary and intelligent waiver of such a right from a silent record. Johnson v. Zerbst (1938), 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 . In stating the responsibility of the trial judge in these circumstances the Supreme Court of the United States said: ‘The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused — whose life or liberty is at stake — is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. While an accused may waive the right to counsel, whether there is a proper waiver should be clearly determined by the trial court, and it would be fitting and appropriate for that determination to appear upon the record.’ 304 U.S. at 465 , 58 S.Ct. at 1023 .” 255 Ind. at 418 , 265 N.E.2d at 44 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “DEFENDANT: I would like to represent myself in this case. Would it be all right with the Court if Mr. Murphy still can be present and sit beside me? THE COURT: Well, now, you’re not going to go both ways on this, Mr. Wallace. You asked for an attorney, I appointed an attorney for you, he’s here to represent you, and you can’t go both ways on it. DEFENDANT: I’ll represent myself, then, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MR. MURPHY: Wait a minute, now. Do you want me to advise you as to. . . . THE COURT: No, you won’t advise him. If he has you as his attorney, you’re going to be his attorney. If he’s going to represent himself, he will represent himself. MR. MURPHY: Wait a minute. Do you understand what you are doing? DEFENDANT: Yes, I do. MR. MURPHY: Do you want me to stand by and advise you? I’ll do it. THE COURT: No, you are not going to stand by and advise him about anything. He’s either going to have an attorney or he’s not going to have an attorney. DEFENDANT: I’ll represent myself. THE COURT: All right.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.