263 So. 3d 1087 - Battles v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' 601 So. 2d 124 , 128-29.' " Baker v. State , 933 So.2d 406 , 409-11 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). "In determining whether the waiver in this case was made knowingly and intelligently, we also look to the factors set out in Fitzpatrick [v. Wainwright , 800 F.2d 1057 (11th Cir. 1986) ], including " ' "(1) whether the colloquy between the court and the defendant consisted merely of pro forma answers to pro forma questions, United States v. Gillings , 568 F.2d 1307 , 1309 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 919 , 98 S.Ct. 2267 , 56 L.Ed.2d 760 (1978) ; (2) whether the defendant understood that he would be required to comply with the rules of procedure at trial, Faretta [v. California , 422 U.S.] at 835-36, 95 S.Ct. at 2541-42 ; Maynard v. Meachum , 545 F.2d 273 , 279 (1st Cir. 197[6] ) ; (3) whether the defendant had had previous involvement in criminal trials, United States v. Hafen , 726 F.2d 21 , 25 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 962 , 104 S.Ct. 2179 , 80 L.Ed.2d 561 (1984) ; (4) whether the defendant had knowledge of possible defenses that he might raise, Maynard , supra ; (5) whether the defendant was represented by counsel before trial, Hafen , supra ; and (6) whether "stand-by counsel”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Flagg v. State

2. “was appointed to assist the defendant with his pro se defense, see Faretta , supra , at 834 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. at 2540-41 n. 46 ; Hance v. Zant , 696 F.2d 940 , 950 n.6 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1210 , 103 S.Ct. 3544 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1393 (1983), overruled on other grounds, Brooks v. Kemp , 762 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir. 1985).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Flagg v. State

3. “[I]t is the lack of counsel, coupled with the absence of a knowing and intelligent waiver thereof, that acts to deny the defendant counsel and to jurisdictionally bar his prosecution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Flagg v. State