Knox v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(a) First appearance in court without counsel. At the defendant’s first appearance in court without counsel, or when the defendant appears in the District Court without counsel, demands a jury trial, and the record does not disclose prior compliance with this section by a judge, the court shall: (1) Make certain that the defendant has received a copy of the charging document containing notice as to the right to counsel. (2) Inform the defendant of the right to counsel and of the importance of assistance of counsel. (3) Advise the defendant of the nature of the charges in the charging document, and the allowable penalties, including mandatory penalties, if any. (4) Conduct a waiver inquiry pursuant to section (b) of this Rule if the defendant indicates a desire to waive counsel. (5) If trial is to be conducted on a subsequent date, advise the defendant that if the defendant appears for trial without counsel, the court could determine that the defendant waived counsel and proceed to trial with the defendant unrepresented by counsel. The clerk shall note compliance with this section in the file or on the docket. "(b) Express waiver of counsel. If a defendant who is not represented by counsel indicates a desire to waive counsel, the court may not accept the waiver until after an examination of the defendant on the record conducted by the court, the State’s Attorney, or both, the court determines and announces on the record that the defendant is knowingly and voluntarily waiving ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lopez v. State · 181 Md. App. 105 - Brye v. State

2. “In our effort to discern the meaning of a rule, we look first to the words of the rule. When the words are clear and unambiguous, ordinarily we need not go any further. Only when the language of the rule is ambiguous is it necessary that we look elsewhere to ascertain legislative intent. We are also to give effect to the entire rule, neither adding, nor deleting, words in order to give it a meaning not otherwise evident by the words actually used. Finally, we seek to give the rule a reasonable interpretation, not one that is illogical or incompatible with common sense.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McReady v. University System · Pinkney v. State

3. ““The court must inform the defendant of the peril he or she faces to permit a ‘knowing and intelligent’ waiver of counsel, with eyes open to the consequences of that decision. “The State postures that advising all defendants of potential penalty enhancements applicable to subsequent offenders would impermissibly chill a defendant’s right to self-representation. To be sure, the right to self-representation is an integral aspect of the right to counsel. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). The right to self-representation, however, presumes that defendant has waived counsel ‘knowingly and intelligently.’ Id. at 835 , 95 S.Ct. at 2541 . A defendant cannot effectively waive counsel without an ‘apprehension ... of the range of allowable [punishments].’ Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 724 , 68 S.Ct. 316, 323 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948). A defendant cannot have full understanding of the consequences of the waiver of counsel if the defendant is unaware of the more severe potential penalties because of prior convictions. A chilling effect, if any, is de minimis compared to the surprise at the end of the day when a defendant learns of the mandatory penalty, after trial and just before sentencing.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lopez v. State · 181 Md. App. 105 - Brye v. State