Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 211 Wis. 2d 194 - State v. Klessig

211 Wis. 2d 194 - State v. Klessig’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

147
cited by 147 later decisions
7
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 129 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably State v. Connor (2009), State v. Weed (2003)

8 federal appellate · 129 state decisions

7201997200020102020decided

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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Dusky v. United States

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

  1. “a properly conducted colloquy serves the dual purposes of ensuring that a defendant is not deprived of his constitutional rights and of efficiently guarding our scarce judicial resources.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]n order for an accused's waiver of his right to counsel to be valid, the record must reflect not only his deliberate choice to proceed without counsel, but also his awareness of the difficulties and disadvantages of self-representation, the seriousness of the charge or charges he is facing and the general range of possible penalties that may be imposed if he is found guilty. Unless the record reveals the defendant's deliberate choice and his awareness of these facts, a knowing and voluntary waiver [of counsel] will not be found.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “should not prevent persons of average ability and intelligence from representing themselves unless 'a specific problem or disability can be identified which may prevent a meaningful defense from being offered, should one exist.'”
    5 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.