United States v. Plattner’s Empirical Analysis
330 F.2d 271 · 1964
Citation profile
96 federal appellate · 1 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Faretta v. California (1975), McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984)
96 federal appellate · 1 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1654 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · Kotteakos v. United States · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann
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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the result is a waiver of the right to counsel and an election to defend pro se, the presiding judge should conduct some sort of inquiry bearing upon the defendant’s capacity to make an intelligent choice.” [Page 276.]”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“'The right to act pro se * * * is a right arising out of the Federal Constitution and not the mere product of legislation or judicial decision.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * A waiver of the constitutional right to the assistance of counsel is of no less moment to an accused who must decide whether to plead guilty than to an accused who stands trial. [Citations omitted.] Prior to trial an accused is entitled to rely upon his counsel to make an independent examination of the facts, circumstances, pleadings and laws involved and then to offer his informed opinion as to what plea should be entered. Determining whether an accused is guilty or innocent of the charges in a complex legal indictment is seldom a simple and easy task for a layman, even though acutely intelligent. * * *. “ * * * It is the solemn duty of a federal judge before whom a defendant appears without counsel to make a thorough inquiry and to take all steps necessary to insure the fullest protection of this constitutional right [to counsel] at every stage of the proceedings. [Citations omitted.] This duty cannot be discharged as though it were a mere procedural formality. * * * “ * * * ‘The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused — whose life or liberty is at stake —is without counsel. 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.’ To discharge this duty properly in light of the strong presumption against waiver of the constitutional right to counsel, a ju”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.