Twyman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

94 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In a plea of guilty proceeding the judge should undertake a factual inquiry to determine if the plea is voluntarily made with an understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea, and the judge should be satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea. . . . (Emphasis supplied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 408 So. 2d 527 - Dingler v. State · 488 So. 2d 41 - Alexander v. State

2. ““ ‘Several federal constitutional rights are involved in a waiver that takes place when a plea of guilty is entered in a state criminal trial. First, is the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 , 12 L.Ed.2d 653 . Second, is the right to trial by jury. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 , 88 S.Ct. 1444 , 20 L.Ed.2d 491 . Third, is the right to confront one’s accusers. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 . We cannot presume a waiver of these three important federal rights from a silent record. “ ‘What is at stake for an accused facing death or imprisonment demands the utmost solicitude of which courts are capable in canvassing the matter with the accused to make sure he has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence. When the judge discharges that function, he leaves a record adequate for any review that may be later sought (Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 173 , 82 S.Ct. 248, 256 , 7 L.Ed.2d 207 ; Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 610 , 87 S.Ct. 1209, 1212 , 18 L.Ed.2d 326 ), and forestalls the spin-off of collateral proceedings that seek to probe murky memories.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State

3. “"In Boykin , the court said the affirmative showing must be made, but the court did not say that the showing must be made by the transcript and certificate of the court reporter. There is no rule of law that requires or even suggests that it must be presumed that the trial judge, the defendant, the defendant's attorney, or the judgment entry do not speak the truth. . . . The presumption that the judgment speaks the truth must prevail under the rule quoted above from Honeycutt [v. State, 47 Ala.App. 640 [, 641], 259 So.2d 846 [, 847] (1972) (stating `[i]t is well settled that the recitals in the judgment import absolute verity, unless contradicted by other portions of the record')]."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte State