State v. McNeil’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently March 2007 · most notably State v. Lynch (1971), State v. Williams (1968)
72 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Moore v. State of Michigan · Beck v. United States
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The United States Constitution does not deny to a defendant the right to defend himself. Nor does the constitutional right to assistance of counsel justify forcing counsel upon a defendant in a criminal action who wants none. Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. 155 , 78 S.Ct. 191 , 2 L.Ed.2d 167 ; Carter v. Illinois, 329 U. S. 173 , 67 S.Ct. 216 , 91 L.Ed. 172 ; United States v. Johnson, 6 Cir. (June 1964), 333 F.2d 1004 ."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hairston · State v. Mems““ ‘The right to such discharge or substitution is to this extent relative, and the authorities seem united in the view that if there is fair representation by competent assigned counsel, proceeding according to his best judgment and the usually accepted canons of criminal trial practice, no right of the defendant is violated by refusal to accede to his personal desire in the matter.’” 263 N.C. 260, 270 ; 157 A.L.R. 1226 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . .. An indigent defendant in a criminal action, in the absence of statute, has no right to select counsel of his own choice to defend him, and we have no statute in North Carolina that gives him the right to select counsel. In the absence of any substantial reason for replacement of court-appointed counsel, an indigent defendant must accept counsel appointed by the court, unless he desires to present his own defense. ...””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Beeson
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.