2 Kan. App. 2d 603 - State v. Daniels’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably State v. Buckland (1989), State v. Lawson (2013)
32 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · Argersinger v. Hamlin · Carnley v. Cochran
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘(i) has been clearly advised of his right to the assistance of counsel, including his right to the assignment of counsel when he is so entitled; “ ’(ii) possesses the intelligence and capacity to appreciate the consequences of this decision; and “ ‘(in) comprehends the nature of the charges and proceedings, the range of permissible punishments, and any additional facts essential to a broad understanding of the case.’ ” 2 Kan. App. 2d at 607-08 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““A defendant may waive the right to counsel. The waiver, however, may not be presumed from a silent record, and the state has the burden of showing that an accused was advised of his right to counsel, either retained or appointed, and that waiver of counsel was knowingly and intelligently made. Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 , 82 S.Ct. 884 (1962).” 2 Kan. App. 2d at 605-606 . “In addition to informing the defendant of the right to counsel, either retained or appointed, the trial court must make more than a routine inquiry when a defendant attempts to waive the right to counsel. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 , 92 L.Ed. 309 , 68 S.Ct. 316 (1948); State v. Cunningham, 222 Kan. 704 , 567 P.2d 879 (1977). . . . “. . . As Justice Kaul stated in State v. Cunningham, 222 Kan. at 706 , the record must establish that the defendant knew what he was doing and ‘made his choice with his eyes open.’ ” 2 Kan. App. 2d at 607 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““When any person is accused of an offense, whether misdemeanor or felony, for which he or she may be imprisoned (as defined ijr Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 ), that person must be informed of the right to retained or appointed counsel before he or she can make a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.””
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.