In Re Martinez’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently July 2000 · most notably 53 Cal. 2d 407 - People v. Ingle (1960), 23 Cal. 4th 183 - People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000)
76 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 19 Cal. 2d 488 - In Re Bell · 16 Cal. 2d 701 - In Re Connor · In Re Lindley · 46 Cal. 2d 540 - People v. Merkouris · People v. Chesser
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . Section 284 requires a consent by client and counsel filed with the clerk or an order of court after notice to the client and counsel. Until these sections are complied with petitioner remained the attorney of record and it was error to permit Martinez to proceed in person. (People v. Merkouris, 46 Cal.2d 540, 554 [ 297 P.2d 999 ].) The sections are not intended simply to protect the lawyer from being replaced without being heard, but are also aimed at protecting the rights of the accused. The framers of our Constitution saw fit to grant the right to counsel to those accused of crime. In implementing that right the Legislature saw fit to provide that, once counsel has been secured, such counsel cannot be removed except as provided in section 284. This is to protect an accused, a layman, from making legal decisions affecting his freedom, without the opportunity of chosen counsel being there and advising him not only of his legal rights, but of the result of his waiver of such rights. It is to protect an accused who is represented by counsel from the possibility of duress and pressure being exerted by the court or by the prosecution. It is to protect an accused who has counsel from forfeiting the protection of legal advice except as provided in the code section. << . . The basic theory behind them is that the Legislature by section 1018, and also in sections 284 and 285, has seen fit to provide certain safeguards to protect one who waives counsel or purports to dis”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“While the colloquy footnoted shows substantial compliance with the requirement of that section that the defendant state to the court “that he does not wish to be represented by counsel”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Ector“The purpose of the requirement that a plea be entered by defendant personally is to ensure that the plea is his own.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.