State v. Meeks’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Smith v. State (2006), Foley-Ciccantelli v. Bishop's Grove Condominium Ass'n (2011)
3 federal appellate · 22 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 Strickland v. Washington · North Carolina v. Alford · Pate v. Robinson · Drope v. Missouri · Medina v. California
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Policy considerations play a fundamental role in protecting the very important relationship between attorney and client. The attorney-client privilege provides sanctuary to protect a relationship based upon trust and confidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“defense counsel may request a continuance or enlargement of time for filing the necessary notices or motions for postconviction relief and permitting defendants who regain competency to raise issues that could not have been raised earlier due to incompetency). Further, in many cases, no delay will even occur. Id. at 133-34 (directing defense counsel to initiate or continue to seek relief on defendant's behalf where the defendant's assistance and decisionmaking are not necessary and there is no risk to the defendant). Thus, an erroneous finding of incompetency will place little burden on the State. ¶ 48. Balancing the risk to a defendant of losing the ability to seek postconviction relief or file an appeal against the risk of the State having to face a delay in an appeal or postconviction proceeding, we conclude that the potential consequences of error additionally suggest that the burden in a postconviction competency hearing be placed on the State once the issue has been raised. ¶ 49. We decline to adopt the State's suggestion that competency be presumed at a postconviction hearing when the defendant was previously determined to be competent to stand trial. Competency is not static. As we observed in Meeks , "[g]iven the nature of mental illness, a defendant may have been competent during a prior proceeding, but incompetent now, and vice versa.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client: between the client or the client's representative and the client's lawyer or the lawyer's representative; or between the client's lawyer and the lawyer's representative; or by the client or the client's lawyer to a lawyer representing another in a matter of common interest; or between representatives of the client or between the client and a representative of the client; or between lawyers representing the client.”
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.