710 So. 2d 1121 - State v. Treadway’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Faretta v. California · McKaskle v. Wiggins · 603 So. 2d 739 - State v. Lobato · 585 So. 2d 540 - State v. Strain
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.
“Treadway did at first seek pro se representation but he subsequently was afforded all of the benefits of legal representation. Perceivably, he agreed with everything Ms. Guste did or did not do. In any event, Treadway on appeal has not alleged any mistake by Ms. Guste or has he pointed out any flaw in the manner his defense was presented. |21The trial judge did not conduct a full hearing to ascertain whether Tread-way was sufficiently adept to represent himself; however, inasmuch as he was ably and competently represented by counsel following the in-court exchanges with the trial judge, the need for a formal waiver of counsel was abrogated. On January 23, 1997, it would seem that Treadway had abandoned his pro se motion. Treadway states in his brief to this Court that he was not allowed to question any witness or to argue his case. He does not say that during trial he wanted to do any of these things but was denied the opportunity, either by Ms. Guste or the trial judge. We see no prejudice or reversible error in Treadway’s consenting to Ms. Guste’s trial representation although early on he had moved for pro se representation and on the day of trial said that he wanted Ms. Guste dismissed and “the man attorney” present.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I’m not happy with Ms. Guste as counsel— THE COURT: —expound on the record— THE DEFENDANT: —whatsoever. The other lawyer was supposed to be— THE COURT: Mr. Treadway, I’m, going to tell you something that it’s not in your best interest to continue talking once the jury comes in the room, okay. THE DEFENDANT: That man attorney that was here last week was supposed to be present here today also.”
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.