Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 27 P3D 663 - State v. Silva

State v. Silva’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
3
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 2024

18 state decisions

140200120102020decided

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 · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey · Bounds v. Smith

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

  1. “A defendant possesses a right to have conflict-free standby counsel because standby counsel must be (1) candid and forthcoming in providing technical information/advice, (2) able to fully represent the accused on a moment's notice, in the event termination of the defendant's self-representation is necessary, and (3) able to maintain attorney-client privilege.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “in criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person, or by counsel,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]e conclude that [the Washington State Constitution] affords a pretrial detainee who has exercised his constitutional right to represent himself, a right of reasonable access to state provided resources that will enable him to prepare a meaningful pro se defense. What measures are necessary or appropriate to constitute reasonable access lies within the sound discretion of the trial court after consideration of all the circumstances, including, but not limited to, the nature of the charge, the complexity of the issues involved, the need for investigative services, the orderly administration of justice, the fair allocation of judicial resources (i.e., an accused is not entitled to greater resources than he would otherwise receive if he were represented by appointed counsel), legitimate safety and security concerns, and the conduct of the accused.”
    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.