Moore v. Haviland’s Empirical Analysis
531 F.3d 393 · 2008
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2022
7 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Williams v. Taylor · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Wade
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Moore did take the stand and respond to questions from his attorney after his requests to proceed pro se. But by contrast with McKaskle , no presumption of acquiescence attaches to that representation by counsel, because Moore was never permitted to proceed pro se. Without having ruled on Moore’s two requests for self-representation, the trial judge told Moore’s attorney to call the next witness and Moore was called to testify. It would be wholly unreasonable to require Moore, in order to preserve his requests to proceed pro se, to refuse the trial court’s orders to continue with the trial, especially in light of the court's having previously admonished him for disrupting the trial. Moore's responsiveness to questions posed by his attorney was neither a withdrawal of his previous requests to proceed pro se or a waiver of his right to self-representation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lathem v. State“[b]y failing to rule on [the defendant's] unequivocal requests to proceed pro se, the trial court deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation.”
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.