State v. McGee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A trial court's refusal to appoint new trial counsel is reviewed using an abuse of discretion standard. Judicial discretion is abused when the district court's action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. The test for abuse of judicial discretion is whether any reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court. [Citation omitted.] "To warrant the appointment of new trial counsel, a defendant must show `justifiable dissatisfaction' with his or her appointed counsel. `Justifiable dissatisfaction' may be demonstrated by showing a conflict of interest, an irreconcilable conflict, or a complete breakdown in communications between the defendant and his or her appointed attorney. [Citation omitted.]" State v. McGee, 280 Kan. 890, 894 , 126 P.3d 1110 (2006).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Kirkpatrick · 35 Kan. App. 2d 517 - State v. Sykes

2. “"To warrant substitute counsel, an indigent defendant must show `justifiable dissatisfaction' with appointed counsel. Justifiable dissatisfaction includes a showing of a conflict of interest, an irreconcilable conflict, or a complete breakdown in communications between counsel and the defendant. But ultimately, as long as the trial court has a reasonable basis for believing the attorney-client relation has not deteriorated to a point where appointed counsel can no longer give effective aid in the fair presentation of a defense, the court is justified in refusing to appoint new counsel."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Breitenbach · 45 Kan. App. 2d 468 - State v. Cook

3. ““(2) If any person charged with a crime and held to answer on an appearance bond shall not be brought to trial within 180 days after arraignment on the charge, such person shall be entitled to be discharged from further liability to be tried for the crime charged, unless the delay shall happen as a result of the application or fault of the defendant, or a continuance shall be ordered by the court under subsection (5). “(5) The time for trial may be extended beyond die hmitations of subsections (1) and (2) for any of the following reasons: (a) The defendant is incompetent to stand trial. If the defendant is subsequendy found to be competent to stand trial, die trial shall be scheduled within 90 days of such finding; (b) A proceeding to determine the defendant’s competency to stand trial is pending and a determination thereof may not be completed within the time limitations fixed for trial by this section. If die defendant is subsequently found to be competent to stand trial, the trial shall be scheduled within 90 days of such finding; (c) There is material evidence which is unavailable; that reasonable efforts have been made to procure such evidence; and that there are reasonable grounds to believe diat such evidence can be obtained and trial commenced within the next succeeding 90 days. Not more than one continuance may be granted the state on this ground, unless for good cause shown, where the original continuance was for less than 90 days, and the trial is commenced within ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Adams