73 Wis. 2d 464 - Mulkovich v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably 162 Wis. 2d 883 - State v. Martin (1991), 107 Wis. 2d 532 - State v. McAllister (1982)
2 federal appellate · 29 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 Glasser v. United States · Bitter v. United States · Kink v. Combs · Browne v. State · 57 Wis. 2d 543 - State v. Harper
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the usual case, due process is denied when counsel is imposed upon a defendant against his will. . . . The right to be represented by counsel of one’s own choosing applies to sentencing as well as to trial. . . . “This right, however, is not an absolute right and may be refused where the court properly exercises its discretion. Phifer v. State (1974) 64 Wis.2d 24 , 218 N.W.2d 354 , stated the appropriate standards for the exercise of judicial discretion when the choice of defendant’s counsel is called into question. When there is no evidence that the proposed counsel is inadequate and when there is no evidence that a change of counsel is made for the purpose of delay, it is an abuse of discretion to refuse a request for retained counsel or for substitution of counsel. “We therefore conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion when he refused to permit the defendant to be represented by competent substitute counsel at a time when such substitution would not have interfered with the orderly procedures of the court.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The right to counsel cannot be manipulated so as to obstruct the orderly procedure of the courts or to interfere with the administration of jus tice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . Moreover, in a criminal ease, a defendant who delays a motion for a mistrial knowing that grounds exist prejudices the state in the operation of its criminal law system and causes inordinate delay and an unnecessary expenditure of public funds. . . .””
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.