State v. Vega’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
158 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 160 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably State v. James G. (2004), State v. Arroyo (2007)
158 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 Strickland v. Washington · Terry v. Ohio · Glasser v. United States · Chimel v. California · Cuyler v. Sullivan
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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well established that the sixth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel .... Where a constitutional right to counsel exists, our Sixth Amendment cases hold that there is a correlative right to representation that is free from conflicts of interest .... This right requires that the assistance of counsel be untrammeled and unimpaired by a court order requiring that one lawyer shall simultaneously represent conflicting interests.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“an affirmative obligation [on trial courts] to explore the possibility of conflict when such conflict is brought to the attention of the trial judge in a timely manner .... The course thereafter followed by the court in its inquiry depends upon the circumstances of the particular case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The Court: ... I do want to ask you, Mr. Vega, some questions about this matter. Because apparently you do not have a copy of the document you sent to the grievance committee. "The Defendant: No, I don't. "The Court: You do not? "The Defendant: No, sir.... "The Court: All right. Have you in fact filed a grievance against [defense counsel]? "The Defendant: Yes, I have. "The Court: And when was that done? "The Defendant: It was approximately Tuesday last week. "The Court: Of last week? "The Defendant: Yes. "The Court: All right. The record should further reflect that [defense counsel] did call the grievance committee in East Hartford and they indicated that they either don't have it logged in or don't have it there yet, but it's possible that it's somewhere in the paperwork. Do you have anything, a copy of anything that would indicate what your claims are against [defense counsel]? "The Defendant: No, Your Honor, except just my memory. "The Court: All right. Would you indicate for me as best your memory allows you what is it you have grieved [defense counsel] for? ... "The Defendant: ... Just that counsel and I have not discussed this case thoroughly. There's aspects in this case that I feel like I could shed light upon. He disregards .... Really counsel's actions are not to my satisfaction. He ignores my request to interview associates who can describe me as who I am.... "The Court: But is there anything further? ... So your basic claim with the grievance committee are pretty”
1 later decision 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.