Desrosier v. Bissonnette’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 3 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A guilty plea operates as a waiver of important rights, and is valid only if done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently .... Where a defendant pleads guilty to a crime without having been informed of the crime’s elements, this standard is not met and the plea is invalid. Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 183 , 125 S.Ct. 2398 , 162 L.Ed.2d 143 (2005)(citing Henderson, 426 U.S. at 647 [ 96 S.Ct. 2253 ]). As the Appeals Court noted, this rule does not require the judge who took the plea to have explained the elements of the offense to the defendant, provided that the record adequately reflects that defense counsel did so. Id. The record need not, however, contain defense counsel’s explicit affirmation to that effect. Even without such an express representation, it may be appropriate to presume that in most cases defense counsel routinely explain the nature of the offense in sufficient detail to give the accused notice of what he is being asked to admit. Henderson, 426 U.S. at 647 [ 96 S.Ct. 2253 ]. Contrary to Desrosier’s contention, the [Massachusetts] Appeals Court did not unreasonably apply these federal constitutional rules for a valid guilty plea. While the court did not invoke, by name, a ‘presumption’ that defense counsel had explained the elements of second-degree murder to Desrosier, its reasoning was entirely consistent with that aspect of Henderson. Based on Desrosier’s admissions at the plea hearing that he had discussed the ‘defenses’ and the ‘pros and cons of h”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 186 Md. App. 320 - Gross v. State

2. “(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim -- (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Santana v. Cowen