Hendon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““And in Snell v. United States, 174 F.2d 580 (10 Cir.1949), from which our Supreme Court quoted approvingly in Cogdell v. State [ 193 Tenn. 261 , 246 S.W.2d 5 ], supra, and in Glasgow v. State [ 224 Tenn. 626 , 461 S.W.2d 25 ], supra, the Court said: ‘The right to the assistance of counsel is one of substance, and it is not satisfied by mere legalistic formality. Willis v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 166 F.2d 721 , certiorari denied, 334 U.S. 848 , 68 S.Ct. 1499 , 92 L.Ed. 1772 ; Fields v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 167 F.2d 547 . It is the duty of the trial judge before whom a defendant appears without counsel to make a thorough inquiry and to take all steps necessary to insure the fullest protection of the constitutional right at every stage of the proceedings. That protecting duty imposes upon the trial judge the responsibility of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. To discharge that duty, the court must investigate as long and as thoroughly as the circumstances of the case reasonably demand. The fact that an accused may state that he is informed of his right to counsel and desires to waive such right does not automatically end the responsibility of the court. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 , 68 S.Ct. 316 , 92 L.Ed. 309 .’ ””

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

2. ““ . . . [T]he law is unquestionably and firmly established that before permitting either an affluent or impoverished criminal defendant to proceed to trial without the assistance of counsel, the trial court must first determine, after adequate inquiry and investigation, whether the accused is competent to make the decision to waive assistance by counsel and whether his decision to do so was made understandingly and intelligently. For, ‘where a person convicted in a state court has not intelligently and understandingly waived the benefit of counsel and where the circumstances show that his rights could not have been fairly protected without counsel, the Due Process Clause invalidates his conviction * * * ’ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116, 118 , 76 S.Ct. 223, 224 , 100 L.Ed. 126 ; Moore v. State of Michigan, supra [ 355 U.S. 155 , 78 S.Ct. 191 , 2 L.Ed.2d 167 ],”

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

3. ““Before a court shall accept a written waiver of the right to counsel, it shall first advise the accused in open court of his right to the aid of counsel in every stage of the proceedings. The court shall at the same time determine whether or not there has been a competent and intelligent waiver of such right by inquiring into the background experience and conduct of the accused and such other matters as the court may deem appropriate. If a waiver is accepted by the court, such waiver shall be spread upon the minutes of the court and filed with the papers of the cause.””

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