24 Md. App. 321 - McRoy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2020
16 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 Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish · Roberts v. City of New York · Scarlett v. State
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is neither possible nor prudent to attempt to formulate a precise and detailed set of guidelines to be followed in determining when the providing of counsel is necessary to meet the applicable due process requirements. . . . Presumptively, it may be said that counsel should be provided in cases where, after being informed of his right to request counsel, the probationer or parolee makes such a request, based on a timely and colorable claim (i) that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present. ... In every case in which a request for counsel at a preliminary or final hearing is refused, the grounds for refusal should be stated succinctly in the record.” (Emphasis supplied).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1) reasonable notice containing the substance of the charges against probationer; 2) if counsel is requested, appointment thereof provided the Scarpelli criteria, £11 U. S. at 790, are met. If counsel is denied, insertion of a succinct statement of grounds of refusal in the record; 3) a hearing, providing an opportunity to be heard and present witnesses and evidence; 4) the right to confront and examine adverse witnesses, unless the court indicates good cause for disallowance of that right; 5) the court’s reasons for revoking probation clearly reflected in the record.” (Emphasis supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lau v. State“In conclusion, we feel constrained to comment upon appellant’s counsel’s contention that he was unprepared for the revocation hearing, because he was not properly-appointed---- Without belaboring the question, suffice to say we find the argument specious at best. Counsel is appointed to represent the defendant in protecting his rights in every proceeding related to the “matter” of his appointment---- The catastrophic results to an indigent defendant whose attorney takes so narrow a view of his representation are all too apparent in the record before us.”
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.