Hatcher v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2007
2 federal appellate · 17 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 Chapman v. State of California · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Johnson v. Zerbst · United States v. Wade · Gilbert v. California
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached at or after the time that adversary judicial proceedings had been initiated against the accused. Kirby v. Illinois, (1972) 406 U.S. 682, 688 , 92 S.Ct. 1877, 1881 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411, 417 (plurality opinion). In United States v. Wade, (1967) 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , and Kirby v. Illinois, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that the right to counsel encompasses the right to have an attorney present at a pre-trial ‘lineup’ identification procedure conducted at or after the initiation of such criminal proceedings. In this State, the filing of an information or indictment begins the formal criminal process. Winston v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 8, 11 , 323 N.E.2d 228, 230 . Therefore an accused is entitled to have counsel present at any ‘lineup’ which is conducted subsequent to the filing of an information or indictment. Kirby v. Illinois, supra; United States v. Wade, supra; Winston v. State, supra.” Id., 414 N.E.2d at 563 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bray v. State““It is clear from the record that Defendant did not waive his right to counsel. Although, Officer Gillespie orally informed him that he was entitled to have an attorney present, he made no response. Gillespie did not ask whether he wanted to have an attorney present, whether he had an attorney, or whether he wished to contact an attorney. The State emphasizes that Defendant did not ask to have counsel present. However, as we noted above, ‘where the assistance of counsel is a constitutional requisite, the right to be furnished counsel does not depend on a request.’ (citations omitted). Likewise, a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver may not be inferred from a silent record, (citations omitted). Therefore, we hold that the defendant did not waive his Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney present at the ‘line-up’ proceedings.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Allen v. State
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.