State v. Ortisi’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2014
1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Faretta v. California · McKaskle v. Wiggins · Morris v. Slappy · Mayberry v. Pennsylvania · State v. Ramseur
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant can exercise the right to self-representation only by first knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to counsel. McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 173 , 104 S.Ct. 944, 948 , 79 L.Ed. 2d 122, 130 (1984); State v. Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499, 509 , 608 A. 2d 317 (1992). However, because of the importance of trial counsel to the criminal justice process, the courts must indulge in every reasonable presumption against waiver. State v. Gallagher, 274 N.J.Super. 285, 295 , 644 A. 2d 103 (App.Div.1994). In Crisafi , our Supreme Court set forth the areas of inquiry that a trial judge must explore to determine whether a defendant has made a knowing and voluntary waiver. The defendant should be advised of the: (1) dangers and disadvantages of self-representation; (2) nature of the charges against him, the statutory defenses to those charges, and the possible range of punishment; (3) technical problems he may encounter in acting as his own counsel and of the risks he takes if the defense is unsuccessful; (4) necessity that he conduct his defense in accordance with the relevant rules of criminal procedure and evidence, that a lack of knowledge of the law may impair his ability to defend himself, and that his dual role as attorney and accused might hamper the effectiveness of his defense; and (5) difficulties in acting as his own counsel and the court should specifically advise the defendant that it would be unwise not to accept the assistance of counsel. Crisafi, supra, 128 N”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The determination of whether the motion for substitution of counsel should be granted is within the discretion of the trial judge and the judge is entitled to take into account the countervailing state interest in proceeding on schedule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“wavering between assigned counsel and self-representation and `by asserting violations of his right to counsel while rejecting every attorney assigned to his case.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.