Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 534 F.2d 1007 - Sapienza ex rel. Argentine v. Vincent

Sapienza ex rel. Argentine v. Vincent’s Empirical Analysis

534 F.2d 1007 · 1976

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
11
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably 19 Cal. 3d 121 - People v. Windham (1977), Chapman v. United States (1977)

25 federal appellate · 18 state decisions — followed in 11 states

200197619801990200020102020decided

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 Faretta v. California · Roberts v. Florida · Kennedy v. Powell · Leary v. United States · First National Bank v. Dickinson

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

  1. “"The right of a defendant in a criminal case to act as his own lawyer is unqualified if invoked prior to the start of the trial.. .. Once the trial has begun with the defendant represented by counsel, however, his right thereafter to discharge his lawyer and to represent himself is sharply curtailed. There must be a showing that the prejudice to the legitimate interests of the defendant overbalances the potential disruption of proceedings already in progress, with considerable weight being given to the trial judge’s assessment of this balance.” (Citations omitted.) Reaffirmed in Sapienza v. Vincent, 534 F.2d 1007, 1010 (2nd Cir. 1976).”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “public defender was competent . . . [the defendant] was obstinate, and the ill-timed request followed a torrent of abortive counsel substitutions”
    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.