People v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 3 district · 226 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 253 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““At the original trial, the defendant was not advised of his right to testify and had no knowledge of it. He was not advised that he could override the advice of his attorney not to testify. Defendant wanted to testify.” (emphasis added)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. People v. Naranjo · People v. Mozee

2. “There are several reasons why a trial judge is not required to inform a defendant of his right to testify. First, a defendant’s decision as to whether or not to testify is often made as the trial unfolds. By advising a defendant of his right to testify, a court could influence the defendant to waive his right not to testify, “thus threatening the exercise of this other, converse, constitutionally explicit and more fragile right.” Second, a court could intrude upon the attorney-client relationship by advising a defendant of his right to testify. “A trial judge must take great care not to assume the functions of trial counsel.” It is primarily the responsibility of defense counsel, not the trial judge, to advise a defendant as to whether or not he should testify and to explain the tactical advantages and disadvantages of each option. If a trial judge were to advise a defendant, suei sponte, of his right to testify, such an act could frustrate a decision on the matter made by the defendant and defense counsel who are designing trial strategy. Finally, a trial judge is not required to inform a defendant of his right to testify because it is difficult for a judge to determine the appropriate time that he should advise a defendant concerning his right to testify, since “the judge cannot know that a defendant has not testified until the defense rests and such a moment is not an opportune time to engage in a discussion with defendant which might lead to a rupture with defense counsel”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Reynolds