State v. Donnell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 18 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We have held that the absence of counsel during arraignment is not, per se, a violation of the Sixth Amendment. See State v. Benison, Mo., 415 S.W.2d 773, 775 , where we stated: At this stage of the proceedings he was not required under the laws of this state to assert any right, plea or defense to preserve any statutory or constitutional right; no possible rights, pleas or defenses were lost to him at these proceedings ; they were preserved inviolate, and no prejudice to defendant resulted. [ 430 S.W.2d at 300 .] ****** We have previously distinguished Hamilton and White in proceedings involving claims of error because of lack of counsel at preliminary hear ing, which we have held repeatedly is not in itself a constitutional error and does not make the preliminary hearing a “critical stage” (State v. Patrick, Mo., 420 S.W.2d 258, 261 ). We hereby expressly declare that it is the law of Missouri now and was at the time from Appellant’s arraignment through his trial that a defendant has an absolute right to consideration on the merits of objections to the indictment and similar pretrial types of attacks on the proceedings. [Ibid.] ****** The right to assert any defense or objection is preserved and is not irretrievably lost as was in the case in Hamilton . [Ibid, at p. 301] ****** As in cases dealing with alleged right to counsel at preliminary hearing in Missouri (State v. Patrick, Mo., 420 S.W.2d 258 ; State v. Harris, Mo., 425 S.W.2d 148 ) we inquire as to whether there was”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Donnell v. Swenson

2. “In Donnell v. Swenson, supra, the district judge stated (258 F.Supp. l.c. 333) that in the appeal on the motion to vacate Appellant had presented to this court the federal constitutional question of “whether a proper application of the principles of Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 , 82 S.Ct. 157 , 7 L.Ed.2d 114 ; White v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 , 83 S.Ct. 1050 , 10 L.Ed.2d 193 , and Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 , had been abridged by reason of the fact that he had been arraigned without counsel.” The district judge found on the basis of evidence adduced that Appellant was not represented by counsel at the time of his arraignment and plea of not guilty, * * *. [ 430 S.W.2d at 299 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Donnell v. Swenson