State v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “So, it appears he’s [forfeited] his right to counsel because he’s persistently demanding counsel of his choice and he refuses to cooperate. He refuses to talk to [his lawyers], refuses to communicate. He has refused to talk to the experts to [sic] evaluation, and — this is quite serious. [Denying the appointment of further counsel] should be done only when it gets to the point that appointing additional counsel would be futile.... [H]e knows how to put [the case] off again. He knows to file a complaint to the Board of Professional Responsibility about his lawyers, and he knows he can sue his lawyers. But, he — he hasn’t shown the court that [the lawyers] have even begun to do anything other than what was in his best interest. So, the conclusion the court reaches ... is that [the defendant has] egregiously manipulated the constitutional right to counsel resulting in delay, disruption and it’s prevented the orderly administration of justice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. Michael W. Parsons

2. “the record supports a finding of forfeiture. The trial court found that the defendant used the tactic of suing his lawyers or filing complaints against them with the Board of Professional Responsibility as a means of coercing the court into discharging counsel and that the pattern was for the tactic to be employed as trial dates approached. The trial court gave the defendant ample opportunity to show via argument, documents, and testimony that he was justified in complaining about counsel’s performance. Nevertheless, the defendant neither articulated nor established any basis for complaint against any of his attorneys. Additionally, the record shows that the defendant refused to communicate with counsel and to cooperate with mental health evaluators. His conduct was egregiously manipulative and abusive of the judicial process; it warrants a finding that he forfeited his right to counsel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. Michael W. Parsons

3. “[d]espite the trial court’s warnings and explanations of the law, the defendant persisted in intentional conduct that prompted the disqualification of counsel,” id. at-, at , and (2) that the defendant’s conduct”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. Tommy Holmes