175 W. Va. 572 - State v. Sandler’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably 179 W. Va. 580 - State v. Neuman (1988), 190 W. Va. 617 - State v. Kilmer (1993)
46 state decisions
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 Faretta v. California · California v. Trombetta · Douglas v. Alabama · Fernandez v. United States · 172 W. Va. 656 - State v. Sheppard
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.
““The determination of whether an accused has knowingly and intelligently elected to proceed without the assistance of counsel depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The test in such cases is not the wisdom of the accused’s decision to represent himself or its effect upon the expeditious administration of justice, but, rather, whether the defendant is aware of the dangers of self-representation and clearly intends to waive the rights he relinquishes by electing to proceed pro se.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. To ascertain if the defendant is cognizant of and willing to relinquish his right to assistance of counsel. 2. To insure that the accused is aware of the nature, complexity and seriousness of the charges against him and of the possible penalties that might be imposed. 3. To warn the accused of the danger and disadvantages of self-representation, (e.g., that self-representation is almost always detrimental and that he will be subject to all the technical rales of evidence and procedure, the same as if he had been represented by counsel.) 4. To advise the defendant that he waives his right to refuse to testify by going outside the scope of argument and testifying directly to the jury. 5. To make some inquiiy into the defendant’s intelligence and capacity to appreciate the consequences of his decision.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Whether good cause is shown for reopening. (2) Whether the new evidence is significant. (3) Whether the evidence introduced at such a late stage would be given undue emphasis by the jury, prejudicing the party against whom it is offered. (4) Whether the evidence is controversial in nature; and (5) Whether the reopening is at the request of the jury or a party. (Citations and footnotes omitted.)”
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.