710 So. 2d 539 - Cobble v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(1) denied the attorney's motion to withdraw; (2) appointed a new attorney to represent the defendant at trial; (3) granted the defendant's request for a continuance to allow him to retain counsel; or (4) determined whether the defendant wanted to represent himself and, if so, engaged the defendant in a colloquy to determine whether he understood all of the implications involved in self-representation."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dickerson v. State · Powers v. State

2. “" Tomlin , 601 So.2d at 128 (emphasis added); see also Stanley v. State , 703 So.2d 1027 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997). In determining whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, this court must look to the `totality of the circumstances' in each particular case. Tomlin , 601 So.2d at 129 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Peake v. State · Presley v. City of Attalla

3. “"The right to counsel, like all constitutional rights, may be waived by a defendant if the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. See Monte v. State , 690 So.2d 516 , 516 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996); see also Rule 6.1(b), Ala.R.Crim.P. "`In Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), the Supreme Court held that a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to represent himself in a criminal case. In order to conduct his own defense, the defendant must "knowingly" and "intelligently" waive his right to counsel, because in representing himself he is relinquishing many of the benefits associated with the right to counsel. Faretta , 422 U.S. at 835 , 95 S.Ct. at 2541 . The defendant "should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that `he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.'" Faretta , 422 U.S. at 836 , 95 S.Ct. at 2541 (other citations omitted).' " Tomlin v. State , 601 So.2d 124 , 128 (Ala. 1991). `"The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused." Johnson v. Zerbst , 304 U.S. 458 , 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938).' Browning v. State , 607 So.2d 339 , 343 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). "`"A waiver of counsel can only be `effectuated when the defendant assert”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Presley v. City of Attalla · Ardis v. State