State v. Goldsberry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is subject to the trial court’s “independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession and that legal proceedings appear fair to all who observe them.” Wheat, 486 U.S. at 160 [ 108 S.Ct. 1692 ]; accord Moore v. State, 390 Md. 343, 405 , 889 A.2d 325, 362 (2005) (stating that a defendant’s right to counsel of choice “will not be permitted to frustrate[ ] the [ethical and] orderly administration of criminal justice”). This right to counsel, though protected by a presumption in favor of a defendant’s counsel of choice, can be overcome. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 164 [ 108 S.Ct. 1692 ]. The presumption can be overcome if, for example, the defendant’s attorney “has a previous or ongoing relationship with an opposing party.” Id. at 159 [ 108 S.Ct. 1692 ]. And it can be overcome, “not only by a demonstration of actual conflict but by a showing of a serious potential for conflict.” Id. at 164 [ 108 S.Ct. 1692 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alexis v. State

2. “[B]efore a trial court is permitted to disqualify a criminal defendant’s privately obtained counsel (regardless of whether counsel is the defendant’s only attorney or one of several on the defense team), the court must conduct a hearing on the matter, “scrutinize closely the basis for the claim,” and make evidence-based findings to determine ... whether there is “actual or serious potential for conflict” that overcomes the presumption the defendant has to his or her counsel of choice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alexis v. State

3. “[T]he [trial] court must be allowed substantial latitude in refusing waivers of conflicts of interest not only in those rare cases where an actual conflict may be demonstrated before trial, but in the more common cases where a potential for conflict exists which may or may not burgeon into an actual conflict as the trial progresses.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alexis v. State