2 Cal. 3d 118 - People v. Marsden’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 1,182 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,372 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably People v. Doolin (2009), 41 Cal. 3d 505 - People v. Burgener (1986)
56 federal appellate · 1,182 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 Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · People v. Redmond · Brubaker v. Dickson · People v. Monk
Cited together with Faretta v. California · Strickland v. Washington · 19 Cal. 3d 121 - People v. Windham · Chapman v. State of California · 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson
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 1,372 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] judge who denies a motion for substitution of attorneys solely on the basis of his courtroom observations, despite a defendant's offer to relate specific instances of misconduct, abuses the exercise of his discretion to determine the competency of the attorney. A judicial decision made without giving a party an opportunity to present argument or evidence in support of his contention `is lacking in all the attributes of a judicial determination.' ( Spector v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 839, 843 , 13 Cal. Rptr. 189 , 361 P.2d 909 .)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“A trial judge is unable to deal intelligently with a defendant’s request for substitution of attorneys unless he is cognizant of the grounds which prompted the request. The defendant may have knowledge of conduct and events relevant to the diligence and competence of his attorney which are not apparent to the trial judge from observations within the four corners of the courtroom.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“the decision to allow a substitution of attorney is within the discretion of the trial judge `unless there is a sufficient showing that the defendant's right to the assistance of counsel would be substantially impaired if his present request was denied.'”
3 later decisions 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.