DeMarrias v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 4 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. ““An indigent defendant is entitled to an in forma pauperis appeal and to the assistance of counsel on that appeal, unless his appeal is found to be wholly frivolous. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 , 82 S.Ct. 917 , 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962); Williams v. United States, 402 F.2d 548 (8th Cir. 1968); Horsley v. Simpson, 400 F.2d 708 (5th Cir. 1968); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . “A defendant is entitled to due process in the court’s determination of whether his appeal is wholly frivolous. Due process requires the court, with the assistance of briefs of defense counsel setting forth any grounds arguably supporting the appeal, to make a full examination of the record before determining that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Anders v. California, supra; Horsley v. Simpson, supra. “If the court finds that the appeal is frivolous, an indigent defendant is entitled to be informed that he may challenge the court’s finding, and that he may have, the assistance of counsel in doing so. Johnson v. United States, 352 U.S. 565 , 77 S.Ct. 550 , 1 L.Ed.2d 593 (1957); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 49 Ala. App. 26 - Hawkins v. State · Robinson v. Black

2. ““The constitutional requirement of substantial equality and fair process can only be attained where counsel acts in the role of an active advocate in behalf of his client, as opposed to that of amicus ctiriae. The no-merit letter and the procedure it triggers do not reach that dignity. Counsel should, and can with honor and without conflict, be of more assistance to his client and to the court. His • role as advocate requires that he support his client’s appeal to the best of his ability. Of course, if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. That request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses; the court — not counsel — then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. If it so finds it may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal insofar as federal requirements are concerned, or proceed to a decision on the merits, if state law so requires. On the other hand, if it finds any of the legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal. “This requirement would not force appointed counsel to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 49 Ala. App. 26 - Hawkins v. State