State v. Fowler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 42 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In 1971, this court filed its opinion in the case of State v. Turner, 186 Neb. 424 , 183 N.W.2d 763 , which case has been consistently followed in this state since it was filed and is the leading authority setting forth the tests to be observed in accepting pleas of guilty. In that case, this court accepted the test enunciated in North Carolina v. Alford, [ 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)], that the standard was and remains whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant. In the opinion we stated: `This requirement of an item-by-item review of constitutional rights on a guilty plea is a strained and a too extreme construction of those cases.' The defendant in that case relied upon Boykin , as Boykin not only requires that a plea of guilty be intelligent and voluntary to be valid but that the record must affirmatively disclose that the defendant entered his plea understandingly and voluntarily. * * * In its opinion in Turner , this court considered the requirements of Boykin , but specifically declined to require a ritualistic litany or item-by-item review of constitutional rights before accepting a guilty plea from a defendant.”

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

2. “The defendant next complains that his attorney did not call him to testify in his own behalf. Although there is conflicting evidence as to defendant’s desire to testify at his trial, we believe the court correctly found from the testimony at the post conviction hearing that the defendant’s trial counsel had discussed this issue with the defendant and that the defendant had acquiesced in his counsel’s advice not to testify. It is clear that defendant’s testimony at the preliminary hearing could have been used to impeach the defendant’s credibility at the trial, and his past criminal record would have been brought to the jury’s attention. We concur in the finding of the District Court in the post conviction hearing that: “Under these circumstances a decision of legal counsel advising the defendant not to take the witness stand is a matter of reasonable trial strategy and not evidence of a lack of effective assistance of counsel.” We have held that trial strategy adopted by counsel without prior consultation with accused will preclude the accused from asserting constitutional claims in the absence of exceptional circumstances. State v. Haynes, 186 Neb. 238 , 182 N.W.2d 199 (1970).”

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

3. “Before accepting a guilty plea a judge is expected to sufficiently examine the defendant to determine whether he understands the nature of the charge, the possible penalty and the effect of his plea.”

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