24 Wash. App. 495 - State v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably State v. Sanwick (1986), 123 Wash. 2d 296 - Matter of Personal Restraint of Lord (1994)
58 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 Griffin v. California · Harris v. New York · Beasley v. United States · United States Ex Rel. Freddie M. Johnson v. Robert L. Johnson, Superintendent, Appeal of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · 91 Wash. 2d 86 - State v. Adams
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n evidentiary hearing would be required only if the defendant `alleges ... that his attorney actually prevented him from testifying in his own behalf.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thomas · State v. Joyner“In general, the decision to call or not call a witness is a matter of legitimate trial tactics. State v. Hess, 86 Wn.2d 51 , 541 P.2d 1222 (1975); State v. Floyd, 11 Wn. App. 1 , 521 P.2d 1187 (1974). However, there is a qualification to the rule. Apparently a criminal defendant has an absolute right to testify in his own behalf which right cannot be abrogated by defense counsel. People v. Freeman, 76 Cal. App. 3d 302 , 142 Cal. Rptr. 806, 810-11 (1977); ABA Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function and the Defense Function § 5.2(a), Commentary at 238 (Approved Draft, 1971). See generally Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 28 L. Ed. 2d 1, 4 , 91 S. Ct. 643 (1971). . . . This is in contrast to an allegation . . . that defense counsel merely advised defendant against testi fying as a matter of trial tactics. If defendant accepts this tactical advice and is not acquitted of the charges, he cannot later allege that he was denied effective counsel because he accepted the advice of his attorney and did not testify. E.g. United States ex rel. Johnson v. Johnson, 531 F.2d 169, 176-77 (3d Cir. 1976); United States v. Ladley, 517 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1975); United States ex rel. Tyrrell v. Jeffes, 420 F. Supp. 256, 272 (E.D. Pa. 1976).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t was an all-or-nothing tactic that well could have resulted in an outright acquittal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Grier · State v. Hassan
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.