Commonwealth v. Tyler’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Commonwealth v. Wright (2008), Commonwealth v. Spotz (2000)
82 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
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Von Moltke v. Gillies · Culombe v. Connecticut · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · United States of America Ex Rel. Harry E. Carey v. A. T. Rundle, Supt.
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is ... firmly established that an accused has a constitutional right to counsel during trial. While an accused may waive his constitutional right, such a waiver must be the free and unconstrained choice of its maker, and also must be made knowingly and intelligently. To be a knowing and intelligent waiver defendant must be aware of both the right and of the risks of forfeiting that right.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the state of the law existing at the time this rule was drafted, it is difficult to formulate a comprehensive list of questions which must be asked of the defendant in determining whether the defendant’s tendered waiver of counsel is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Court decisions contain broad language in referring to the areas and matters to be encompassed in determining whether the defendant understands the full impact and consequences of his waiver of the right to counsel, but is nevertheless willing to waive that right. It is recommended, however, that at a minimum, the judge or issuing authority ask questions to elicit the following information: (1) That the defendant understands that he or she has the right to be represented by counsel, and the right to have free counsel appointed if the defendant is indigent. (2) That the defendant understands the nature of the charges against the defendant and the elements of each of those charges. (3) That the defendant is aware of the permissible range of sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged. (4) That the defendant understands that if he or she waives the right to counsel, the defendant will still be [b]ound by all the normal rules of procedure and that counsel would be familiar with these rules. (5) That the defendant understands that there are possible defenses to these charges which counsel might be aware of, and if these defenses are not raised at trial, they may be lost permanently. (6) That the defendant un”
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.