Carnley v. Cochran’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

939 federal appellate · 116 district · 2,099 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 3,690 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible. The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Anything less is not waiver.”

   198 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Michigan v. Jackson · McConnell v. United States

2. “Neither Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 , 68 S.Ct. 763, 92 L.Ed. 986 nor Moore v. Michigan, supra, is in any way inconsistent with our holding and disposition here. * * * In Moore, the record showed clearly that the petitioner had expressly declined an offer of counsel by the trial judge, and we held that the accused had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that his acquiescence was not sufficiently understanding and intelligent to amount to an effective waiver. But no such burden can be imposed upon an accused unless the record or a hearing, were required reveals his affirmative acquiescence. * * * " 369 U.S. at 516-517, 82 S.Ct. at 890. (Emphasis added.) 22 The clear declination of an "offer of counsel”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Taylor v. Emery · Ayers v. Hall

3. “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.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Mickle