People v. Chesser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 136 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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““One purpose of the constitutional guaranty is to protect an accused from his own ignorance of his legal and constitutional rights, and the guaranty would be nullified if it were held that a waiver made in ignorance of its consequences would remove the protection of the Constitution. As stated in Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, the constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel of itself invokes the protection of the court when the accused is without counsel, and ‘ This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. While the accused may waive the right to Counsel, whether there is a proper waiver should be clearly determined by the trial court, and it would be fitting and appropriate for that determination to appear upon the record.’ (Italics added.) (304 U.S. at p. 465 [ 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 ].)””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Green · 114 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 841 - People v. Agnew

2. ““In order for a trial judge to determine whether there has been a competent and intelligent waiver of counsel, he must first ascertain whether the defendant clearly understands the nature and effect of his waiver. In a capital case where the defendant has not had the benefit of advice of counsel, and there is nothing to indicate that he understands the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses which may be available, or the punishments which may be exacted, the trial judge does not sufficiently perform his duty if he merely advises the defendant that he had a right to counsel ...” ( 29 Cal.2d 822 .) And that “The trial judge should also take into account the education, experience, mental capacity, and conduct of the accused in determining whether his willingness to waive counsel may be due to lack of ability to comprehend his situation.” ( 29 Cal.2d 824 .) See, also, Von Moltke v. Gillies, supra, at page-[92 L.Ed.].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 88 Cal. App. 2d 167 - In Re Jones

3. ““The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and the knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 135 Cal. App. 2d 405 - In Re Major