State v. Vann’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably State v. Bowen (2014), State v. Foster (2010)
56 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 Faretta v. California · McKaskle v. Wiggins · Wood v. Georgia · Mickens v. Taylor · State v. Gleason
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is the task of the district judge to insure that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is honored. Where a trial court becomes aware of a possible conflict of interest between an attorney and a defendant charged with a felony, the court has a duty to inquire further. Likewise, where the trial court is advised of the possibility of a conflict by either the defendant or the State, the court is required to initiate an inquiry to insure that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is not violated. A trial court abuses its discretion if it fails to inquire further after becoming aware of a potential conflict between an attorney and his or her client." 280 Kan. 782 , Syl. ¶ 1.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'The right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails.' " Jones , 290 Kan. at 377 , 228 P.3d 394 (quoting Faretta , 422 U.S. at 819 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 ). "A criminal defendant who before trial clearly and unequivocally expresses a wish to proceed pro se has the right to self-representation after a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. A knowing and intelligent waiver requires that the defendant be informed on the record of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. The choice is to be made ' "with eyes open.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bunyard · State v. Burden“'Because the right to proceed pro se is at odds with the right to be represented by counsel, "[t]he courts must indulge 'every reasonable presumption against waiver' of the right to counsel, and will 'not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights [ i.e., the right to counsel].' " [Citation omitted.] "[U]nlike the right to counsel, the right to self-representation can be waived by mere failure to assert it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bunyard · State v. Burden
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.