Avila v. Roe’s Empirical Analysis
298 F.3d 750 · 2002
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Faretta v. California · Lindh v. Murphy · Sumner v. Mata · 2 Cal. 3d 118 - People v. Marsden · 3 Cal. 4th 41 - People v. Clark
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] Faretta request is timely if made before jury impanelment, `unless it is shown to be a tactic to secure delay.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether a defendant’s request to defend himself is a tactic to secure delay, the court may, of course, consider the resulting effect of delay. A showing that a continuance would be required and that the resulting delay would prejudice the prosecution may be evidence of a defendant’s dilatory intent— The inquiry, however, does not stop there. The court must also examine the events preceding the motion, to determine whether they are consistent with a good faith assertion of the Faretta right and whether the defendant could reasonably be expected to have made the motion at an earlier time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burton v. Davis
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.