71 Wash. 2d 583 - State v. Piche’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably State v. Jeffers (1983), State v. Varga (2004)
3 federal appellate · 63 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Haynes v. Washington · Bird v. United States · 60 Wash. 2d 551 - State v. White · 65 Wash. 2d 808 - State v. Darst · 38 Wash. 2d 446 - State v. Rio
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he choice of trial tactics, the action to be taken or avoided, and the methodology to be employed must rest in the attorney's judgment.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“"We note, with increasing concern, that it seems to be standard procedure for the accused to quarrel with court-appointed counsel, or to develop an undertone of studied antagonism and claimed distrust, or to be reluctant to aid or cooperate in preparation of a defense. This appears to be done in order to argue on appeal that the accused was deprived of due process alleging he was represented by incompetent counsel."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When the plea of insanity or mental irresponsibility is interposed, the burden is on the defendant to prove that defense by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. White, 60 Wn.2d 551 , 374 P.2d 942 (1962); State v. Putzell, 40 Wn.2d 174 , 242 P.2d 180 (1952). Accordingly, if defendant wishes the issue of his insanity or mental irresponsibility put to the jury, he must present evidence to support it; if he fails to do so, the court ought not submit that issue to the jury, for it is improper to submit an issue to the jury or instruct as to a theory of a case unless there is evidence to prove it. State v. Jackson, 70 Wn.2d 498 , 424 P.2d 313 (1967); State v. Rio, 38 Wn.2d 446 , 230 P.2d 308 (1951).”
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.