Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 603 NW2D 91 - State v. Randle

State v. Randle’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Singer v. United States · United States v. Fitzpatrick · Capwell v. State · State v. Zeko · United States v. Moore

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

  1. “[t]he ability to waive a constitutional right does not ordinarily carry with it the right to insist upon the opposite of that right. For example, although a defendant can, under some circumstances, waive his constitutional right to a public trial, he has no absolute right to compel a private trial; although he can waive his right to be tried in the State and district where the crime was committed, he cannot in all cases compel transfer of the case to another district; and although he can waive his right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, it has never been seriously suggested that he can thereby compel the Government to try the case by stipulation. Moreover, it has long been accepted that the waiver of constitutional rights can be subjected to reasonable procedural regulations.... The Constitution recognizes an adversary system as the proper method of determining guilt, and the Government, as a litigant, has a legitimate interest in seeing that cases -in which it believes a conviction is warranted are tried before the tribunal which the Constitution regards as most likely to produce a fair result.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The defendant has a duty as well as a right to be present at his trial. He may not absent himself without the permission of the court. It is even said that a statute authorizing trial of misdemeanor cases in the absence of the accused does not mean that one charged with a misdemeanor has a right to be absent at trial and to appear only by counsel. In a jurisdiction which considers defendant’s presence nonwaivable and essential to the validity of the proceedings, his presence at every stage of the trial may be compelled. But even where his right to be present can be waived, this does not amount to a right to be absent, since the prosecution has a right to require his presence for purposes of identification by its witnesses and of receiving punishment if found guilty.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.