State v. Crisafi’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
September 1992
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Von Moltke v. Gillies · Bibby v. United States · McKaskle v. Wiggins
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“THE COURT: Mr. Crisafi, we have Mr. Fullilove who, I understand, has been designated to represent you. ******** THE DEFENDANT: I decline representation of this counsel at this time. I have— THE COURT: You mean you want to represent yourself? THE DEFENDANT: No, not really. I would like representation, and if it’s necessary, I will go in pro se rather than— THE COURT: That’s up to you, but I’m not going to allow you to make a choice as to who is going to represent you. THE DEFENDANT: All right, your Honor, then I will represent myself. THE COURT: That’s up to you. I will have to ask counsel to sit by to assist you with whatever technicalities of the law you may be advised of.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Crisafi
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.