State v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
43
cited by 43 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
August 2019
most recently cited
41 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Faretta v. California · Dusky v. United States · Griffith v. Kentucky · Godinez v. Moran · Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“after being found competent, seeks to represent himself, the trial court has two choices: (1) it may grant the motion to proceed pro se, allowing the defendant to exercise his constitutional right to self-representation, if and only if the trial court is satisfied that he has knowingly and voluntarily waived his corresponding right to assistance of counsel ...; or (2) it may deny the motion, thereby denying the defendant's constitutional right to self-representation because the defendant falls into the "gray area" and is therefore subject to the "competency limitation" described in Edwards . [Only then will the trial court] make findings of fact to support its determination that the defendant is unable to carry out the basic tasks needed to present his own defense without the help of counsel [pursuant to Edwards ].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] trial court's rulings on relevancy are technically not discretionary, ... we accord them great deference on appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Muhammad · State v. Altman“described in Edwards . [Only then will the trial court] make findings of fact to support its determination that the defendant is unable to carry out the basic tasks needed to present his own defense without the help of counsel [pursuant to Edwards ]. 365 N.C. at 22 , 707 S.E.2d at 219 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court held in Lane II that since the defendant in that case was allowed to represent himself, he”
2 later decisions 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.