State v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is contended that defendant’s constitutional rights were violated in that he was denied due process of law because of the fact he was not represented by counsel at his preliminary examination, and that under the rule of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 , 9 L. ed. 2d 799, 83 S. Ct. 792 , 93 A. L. R. 2d 733, he was entitled to ‘the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.’ “The purpose and function of a preliminary examination for one charged with a felony under the laws of this state has been discussed in many of our decisions. Its purpose is to determine whether an offense has been committed and whether there is probable cause for charging a defendant with the commission thereof. It is not a ‘trial’ in the ordinary sense of the word, and neither is it a trial in the sense that one may be found ‘guilty.’ A defendant is bound over for trial only when the state establishes that an offense has been committed and that there is probable cause for charging him with its commission — otherwise he is to be discharged, A defendant has the right to be assisted by counsel at a preliminary examination, but there is no statute requiring the appointment of counsel in such a proceeding, and it has been held many times that failure to appoint counsel at a preliminary examination is not error. (State v. Daegele, 193 Kan. 314, 316 , 393 P. 2d 978 , and cases cited in the opinion.) “In State v. Latham & York, 190 Kan. 411, 375 , P. 2d 788 (cert. den. 373 U. S. ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bergin v. State

2. ““Although not assigned as error, and not actually here for purposes of appellate review because of failure to raise the point in the court below, it is suggested appellant did not have a preliminary examination on the charge which was filed against him in the district court. It must be remembered the ¡record discloses that on the trial of the case in district court appellant, while represented by competent counsel, waived arraignment, pleaded not guilty, and went to trial on the amended information. Under such circumstances this court has long been committed to the rule that, thereafter, questions raised respecting lack of preliminary examination are no longer material and afford no sound basis for reversal of the judgment in a criminal action on appeal (State v. Majors, 182 Kan. 644 , 323 P. 2d 917 ; State v. Osburn, 171 Kan. 330, 335 , 232 P. 2d 451 , and State v. Wallgren, 144 Kan. 10, 11 , 58 P. 2d 74 ), or for the granting of a writ in a habeas corpus proceeding (Thomas v. Hand, 184 Kan. 485 , 337 P. 2d 651 , and Ramsey v. Hand, 183 Kan. 307, 309 , 327 P. 2d 1080 ).” (1. c. 245.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McCarther

3. ““This court, in a long and unbroken line of decisions, has fully demonstrated that under the law of this state an accused has no constitutional right to be furnished counsel at his preliminary hearing.” (pp. 243, 244.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bergin v. State