Badger v. Cardwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

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

1. “[A] defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, after he has been warned by the judge that he will be removed if he continues his disruptive behavior, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom. Once lost, the right to be present can, of course, be reclaimed as soon as the defendant is willing to conduct himself consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Chapple · Theodore Chester Kulas v. Jaime Flores

2. “The right of an accused to be present at his trial is an ancient and well-established one which draws on several constitutional sources[;]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Veatch · United States v. Rewald

3. “[T]he court identified the defendant's right to represent himself with the defendant's right to be present. That identification is easy to make in the heat of trial. Both rights arise from assurances of the Sixth Amendment. Both rights are exercised when an accused stands in propria persona. Both rights may be curtailed on behalf of the same institutional interest. And, as a factual matter, both rights are usually lost by the same or succeeding acts. ... [T]he right of self-representation must be claimed to be granted, while the right to be present is extended as a matter of course.... ... It is reasonable to suppose that there are cases in which a defendant becomes so aroused in arguing and questioning, so frustrated by an inevitable succession of defeats on matters he little understands, so angered at his inability to elicit favorable testimony and to discredit damaging testimony, that in representing himself he loses self-control and seriously disrupts his trial. Yet, the same accused may be capable of listening and even assisting while another person, more versed in the substance and procedure of law, conducts his defense. Appellant may have been such a person. On this record we do not know; neither could the trial judge have known.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Aceto