Lerma v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 [ 98 S.Ct. 1173 , 55 L.Ed.2d 426 ] (1978), the United States Supreme Court explored the risk inherent in the representation of co-defendants and set forth standards for review when those risks were made known to the trial court. The Court held that when the possibility of inconsistent interests between co-defendants is brought home to the trial court, the court has an affirmative duty to assure that the co-defendants are not deprived of their right to the effective assistance of counsel. Once this duty arises, the trial court has an obligation either to see that the co-defendants are represented by separate counsel or to ‘take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk was too remote to warrant separate counsel.’ Id. at 484 [ 98 S.Ct. at 1178 ]. Furthermore, the Court held that a defendant who has made an objection to joint representation need not show specific harm and prejudice. Reversal is automatic whenever a trial court improperly requires joint representation over timely objection. “Two years later the United States Supreme Court again took up the problem of conflict of interest. In Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 [ 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 ] (1980), the Court resolved two issues specifically reserved in Holloway . First, the Court held that without a timely objection to joint representation, trial courts have no affirmative duty to inquire whether a conflict of interest exists. As the Court put it, ‘Unless the trial cour”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Calloway v. State