Von Moltke v. Gillies’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1,518 federal appellate · 94 district · 1,486 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 3,684 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To be valid such waiver must be made with an apprehension of the nature of the charges, the statutory offenses included within them, the range of allowable punishments thereunder, possible defenses to the charges and circumstances in mitigation thereof, and all other facts essential to a broad understanding of the whole matter.”

   242 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1 · Mickens v. Taylor

2. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Boria v. Keane · 168 F. Supp. 2d 1055 - Shafer v. Bowersox

3. “THE COURT: This is Cause No. 75-1898, State of Missouri vs. Eugene Tilley, wherein the charge is Stealing $50 or over. Mr. Tilley, as I understand it, you have expressed the desire to represent yourself in this case; is that correct, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: As you know, previously this Court appointed the Public Defender Bureau of the City of St. Louis to rep resent you. That was done back on August 28, 1975, in Division No. 16 of this Court. Now, you have a constitutional right to be represented by counsel. Do you understand that, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: But as I further understand, you have decided that you do not wish to be represented by counsel at the trial of your case; is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q Despite the fact that you do have the constitutional right to have an attorney represent you, and, in fact, one has been appointed to represent you; is that correct? A Yes, sir. THE COURT: May I, for the record, inquire of you why you do not wish to have the Public Defender’s office represent you in the trial of this case? THE DEFENDANT: Because all he wanted me to do is plead guilty. He kept telling me, just plead guilty, plead guilty. And I didn’t — I’m not guilty, so I didn’t want to plead guilty. But the way he was talking, I didn’t have a chance, you know, so he said, ‘Plead guilty.’ THE COURT: In other words, as I gather, your attorney, you are of the opinion he felt the case was such that he felt the State would get a conviction, and”

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