Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Parren v. State (1987), Walker v. State (1986)
33 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Von Moltke v. Gillies · Sandefur v. State
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The test whether a defendant has intelligently elected to proceed [p]ro se is not the wisdom of the decision or its effect upon the expeditious administration of justice. It is only necessary that a defendant be made aware of the problems of self-representation so the record establishes that he understands that his actions in proceeding without counsel may be to his ultimate detriment. Under Faretta v. California , [ 422 U.S. at 836 ] . . . the defendant's technical knowledge of the law and its operation at trial is totally irrelevant in the assessment of his knowing exercise of the right to defend himself.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. MITCHELL v. STATE · Mathis v. State“Even if the defense had produced the required affidavits, this Court held as early as 1916, and consistently since, that the affidavits raise a question just as any other question of fact that might be submitted to the trial judge, and unless it is clear that he has abused his discretion, or committed error in his judgment, his finding and judgment will not be disturbed by this Court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“. . All that is required for an effective election for self-representation is that the defendant have full knowledge or adequate warning concerning this right and a clear intent to exercise it. . ” [Emphasis added, citations omitted].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Stowe v. State · Felts v. State
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.