State v. Dicks’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably State v. Hutch (1993), State v. Merino (1996)
59 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · Palko v. State of Connecticut · 9 Cal. 3d 679 - In Re Brown · Wong v. Among
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] defendant shall be apprised of his right to counsel before plea. He may then plead not guilty, guilty or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept the plea without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge. (Emphasis added).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Riveira · State v. Vaitogi“The trial court should first examine the particular facts and circumstances relating to the defendant, such as the defendant’s age, education, mental capacity, background and experience, and his conduct at the time of the alleged waiver. This is necessary to allow the trial court to determine the level and depth to which its explanation and inquiry must extend. Secondly, in order to fully assure that the defendant is informed of the risks of self-representation, the trial court should make him aware of the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses available, punishments which may be imposed, and all other facts essential to a broad understanding of the whole matter. Finally, the trial court should inform the defendant: of his right to counsel, whether private or appointed; that self-representation is detrimental to himself; that he will be required to follow all technical rules and substantive, procedural, and evidentiary law; that the prosecution will be represented by able counsel; that a disruption of the trial could lead to vacation of the right to self-representation; and that if voluntary self-representation occurs, the defendant may not afterward .claim that he had inadequate representation. The trial judge is not required to give the defendant a short course in criminal law and procedure, since a defendant’s technical legal knowledge is not relevant to an assessment of his knowing exercise of the right to defend himself. However, the re”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ourts do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights and such a presumption in the light of a silent record is not constitutionally permissible. Whether an accused has effectively waived his [or her] right to counsel depends largely on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Among the probative factors bearing on the question are the age, education, and mental capacity of the defendant, his [or her] background and experience, and his [or her] conduct at the time of the alleged waiver.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. D'AMBROSIO 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.