Rhay v. Browder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 5 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Counsel is the manager of the lawsuit; this is of the essence of the adversary system of which we are so proud. In the nature of things he must be, because he knows how to do the job and the defendant does not. That is why counsel must be there.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 51 Ala. App. 573 - Taylor v. State · 17 Md. App. 563 - State v. McKenzie

2. ““For many years, the Supreme Court has been steadily enlarging the scope of the guarantee of the right to counsel contained in the Sixth Amendment, and always on the grounds so eloquently stated in Powell v. [State of] Alabama, 1932, 287, U.S. 45, 68-69 [ 53 S.Ct. 55 , 64, 77 L.Ed. 158 .] “ ‘The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate, or those of feeble intellect. If in any case, civil or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party by counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may not be doubted that such ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wilson v. Gray

3. “We think that if ever a procedural rule does `serve a legitimate state interest' (Henry v. State of Mississippi, supra, 379 U.S. 443 , 85 S.Ct. 564, p. 567, 13 L.Ed.2d 408), the rule applied by the Washington court does.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Huson v. Rhay