State v. Raymond’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) presenting a defense is not a simple matter of telling one’s story, but requires adherence to various technical rules governing the conduct of a trial; (2) a lawyer has substantial experience and training in trial procedure and that the prosecution will be represented by an experienced attorney; (3) a person unfamiliar with legal procedures may allow the prosecutor an advantage by failing to make objections to inadmissible evidence, may not make effective use of such rights as the voir dire of jurors, and may make tactical decisions that produce unintended consequences; (4) a defendant proceeding pro se will not be allowed to complain on appeal about the competency of [her] representation; and (5) the effectiveness of [her] defense may well be diminished by [her] dual role as attorney and accused.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hirning · State v. Patten

2. “A defendant must be aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. On appeal, waiver of the right to counsel will not be found knowingly and intelligently made unless the trial court (1)warns the defendant of the dangers of self-representation or, (2) unless the record indicates circumstances from which this court can find the defendant was aware of the danger and made a knowing and intelligent waiver. While in some cases there may be a record showing a defendant is aware of the pitfalls of self-representation, an admonition from the trial court is preferred as it eliminates any doubt.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hirning · State v. Patten

3. “We have recognized that while a life sentence without parole extracts [sic] retribution, deters the convict from committing crime, removes him from the street, and puts would-be felons on notice of the high penalty of recidivism, it completely eschews the goal of rehabilitation. Bult v. Leapley, 507 N.W.2d 325, 327 (S.D.1993); State v. Weiker, 342 N.W.2d 7, 10 (S.D.1983), cert denied, 465 U.S. 1069 , 104 S.Ct. 1422 , 79 L.Ed.2d 747 (1984).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hinger