Kruchten v. Eyman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In considering the legal aspect of the conflict of interest claim, we start with the premise that if a conflict of interest actually exists the court will not weigh or determine the degree of prejudice which may result before granting relief. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 62 S. Ct. 457 , 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942). However, until an actual conflict is shown to exist or can be reasonably foreseen an attorney may, in good faith, represent both defendants.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holloway v. State · Amended Opinion Vincent Ray Willis v. United States

2. ““In considering the legal aspects of the conflict of interest 'claim, we start with the premise that if a conflict of interest actually exists the courts will not weigh or determine the degree of prejudice which may result before granting relief. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 75-76 , 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). However, until an actual conflict is shown to exist or can be reasonably foreseen an attorney may, in good faith, represent both defendants. (Emphasis supplied). “This court, in Lugo v. United States, 350 F.2d 858, 859 , said: “ ‘All the cases cited to us by appellant involved obvious conflicts of interest, and while we cannot indulge in nice calculations about the amount of prejudice which results from a conflict of interest [ Glasser, supra], neither can we create a con flict of interest ont of mere conjecture as to what might have been shown.’ “In Juvera v. United States, 378 F.2d 433, 437 (9 C.A. 1967), this Court stated: “ ‘It is argued that it was essential that the trial judge at the commencement of the trial discuss with the defendants the problems relaing to representation of the several defendants by one counsel, pointing out to them the disadvantage that might arise should there be conflicting interests to be represented by the attorney. We find this contention without merit for the reasons recently noted by us in Lugo v. United States, 9 Cir., 350 F.2d 858 .’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Jeffrey

3. “* * * so incompetent as to make the trial `a farce or a mockery of justice', a representation so ineffective as to be `shocking to the conscience of the Court.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Musgrove v. Eyman