68 So. 3d 1015 - State v. Mathieu’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although no consensus has formed, substantial authority exists ... that a trial court must conduct an adequate Faretta colloquy when a defendant elects hybrid representation in which, at various stages of the trial, as in the present case, he acts entirely on his own as co-counsel. See, e.g., United States v. Davis, 269 F.3d 514, 520 (5th Cir.2001) (to the extent that defendant questioned 14 of the 19 witnesses called at trial and gave his own closing argument, “ ‘[h]ybrid’ or no, the representation sought by Davis entailed a waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel that required the safeguards specified in Faretta.”); United States v. Turnbull, 888 F.2d 636, 638 (9th Cir. 1989) (“If the defendant assumes any of the ‘core functions’ of the lawyer ... the hybrid scheme is acceptable only if the defendant has voluntarily waived counsel.”); Hill v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 221, 228 (Ky.2004) (under an all-in-or-all-out procedure in.which defendant cross-examined on his own four of five prosecution witnesses and conducted direct examination of two of. five defense witnesses, during which counsel .remained silent, “the trial court erred by not holding a Faretta hearing, issu- . ing warnings, and making a finding as to whether Appellant’s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”) (citing Davis and distinguishing Leg-gett ). However, contrary authority also exists. See Ex Parte Arthur, 711 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Ala.1997) (“Faretta, however, did not require a formal colloqu”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 187 So. 3d 41 - State v. McCorvey · 137 So. 3d 788 - State v. Stanfield