People v. Terry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Even if defendant intended to seek counsel himself (a contingency not even suggested either in the trial court or here), he was required to act with some .degree of promptness. He showed no sound reason for discharge of Mr. Maynard. To replace that attorney would require continuance to permit new counsel to prepare. A rule permitting such a move at mere whim would invite repetition and intolerable interference with orderly discharge of all business of the court. A long delayed request for substitution, unless for compelling reason, need not be granted (People v. Whinnery, 55 Cal.App.2d 794 , 131 P.2d 33 ; People v. Linden, supra, 52 Cal.2d 1, 15 , 338 P.2d 397 ; People v. Dorman, 28 Cal.2d 846, 850-852 , 172 P.2d 686 ). Even the most reluctant defendant must some day be tried, and the court is not required to disrupt its calendars indefinitely while awaiting that day.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. State · 43 Ala. App. 153 - Holloway v. State

2. ““A defendant may waive counsel [citation], and since a court usually cannot compel a mentally competent defendant to accept representation against his will [citation] it follows that obdurate insistence by such a defendant must be recognized. The court is, of course, under an obligation to explain to a defendant who desires to represent himself the difficulties he will encounter, and to assure that he understands the risks of that course. It is not, however, required to demand that such a defendant demonstrate or possess ‘ either the acumen or the learning of a skilled lawyer' [citation], A contrary rule would enable a stubborn defendant to defer his trial indefinitely, to cause repeated continuances even after jurors had been summoned or impanelled, and to make a shambles of court calendars and of the litigation of others equally entitled to the time and consideration of the courts. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Johns