Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 Kan. 666 - State v. Weigand

State v. Weigand’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
February 2006
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2006

12 state decisions

801970198019902000decided

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 Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · State v. Taylor · Willis v. Hunter · State v. Dickson · State v. Young

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The right of one charged with crime to be represented by counsel includes a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice. . . . The lack of cooperation by the defendant and his retained counsel in preparing for trial is apparent in this record. Delay in the enforcement of our criminal law should not be permitted or condoned. The prompt disposition of criminal cases is to be commended and encouraged. “However, the irresponsibility of a defendant and the failure of his retained counsel to prepare for trial cannot justify stripping counsel appointed by the court of sufficient time to acquaint himself with the crime charged. The right to counsel is a matter of substance not form and representation must fulfill the spirit and purpose of the constitutional mandate. (State v. Oldham, 178 Kan. 337 , 285 P.2d 775 .) “The right to effective assistance of counsel in the preparation and trial of the case is recognized in all jurisdictions. It includes sufficient time to advise with counsel and prepare a defense. (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 , 84 A.L.R. 527 .) Counsel should have opportunity to acquaint himself with the facts of the case and the law. He should be afforded an opportunity to present the facts to the jury in their most favorable light. (Willis v. Hunter, 166 F.2d 721 .) . . . “A trial court should be aware of the propensities of the accused to procrastinate in the hiring of counsel. The court can and should protect itself against the ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"The brevity of time between assignment of counsel and the trial bears directly upon the question of whether the accused is denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. . . .” (p. 671.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.