Kates v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
435 F.2d 1085 · 1970
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably United States v. Calabro (1972), Maynard v. Meachum (1976)
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · Brown v. Allen · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'(W)e have recognized a right of a defendant to proceed without counsel and to refuse the representation of . . . counsel. * * * (H)e may not use this right to play a 'cat and mouse' game with the court * * * or by ruse or strategem fraudulently seek to have the trial judge placed in a position where, in moving along the business of the court, the judge appears to be arbitrarily depriving the defendant of counsel.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The Defendant]: I want it to be known that [Mr. Helm] (the defendant's counsel) doesn't have to represent me any more and I wasn't satisfied with him.... [The Court]: Do you want him ... to represent you or don't you? Just answer yes or no. [The Defendant]: I don't want [him] representing me any more. I am going to represent myself in Court. [The Court]: Do you want Mr. Helm to proceed or don't you? If he withdraws as your attorney, you will sit out there and represent yourself.... [The Defendant]: (I) don't feel that I can be represented properly by the attorney and I'm not satisfied with him ... (N)ot only am I not satisfied I am not going to represent myself. [The Court]: We will proceed. Mr. Helm will continue to be your Counsel, sir. [The Defendant]: I want it to be known that I don't want anyone out there representing me and I am not going to represent myself. .... [The Court]: Answer yes or no do you want Mr. Helm to represent you or don't you? [The Defendant]: I not only don't want Mr. Helm, but I'm not going to try to do it myself, try to represent myself. [The Court]: I understand now that you do not want Mr. Helm to represent you. Answer that yes or not. [no answer] [The Defendant]: I answered that one way. [The Court]: All right, Mr. Helm will continue to represent you. [The Defendant]: I can answer that that I'm not going to help him represent me out in Court any more and neither am I going to represent myself. [ Id. at 1086-87 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.