State v. Herron’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

cited by 15 later decisions

states following

March 2016

most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2016

15 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 Faretta v. California · Padilla-Martinez v. United States · 19 Cal. 3d 121 - People v. Windham · Davis v. Oklahoma · Chapman v. United States

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

“Courts reach different conclusions when considering whether a request is timely. Most courts agree that the right of self-representation must be asserted before trial. State v. Power, supra, at 195; Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578, 585 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); United States v. Smith, 780 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.1986). The conflict arises over the definition of “before trial.” Some courts conclude that the right must be asserted “within a reasonable time prior to the commencement of trial.” Ru ssell v. State, supra, 383 N.E.2d at 314 ; People v. Windham, 19 Cal.3d 121, 126-30 , 137 Cal.Rptr. 8, 11-13 , 560 P.2d 1187, 1190-92 , (1977), cert. denied 434 U.S. 848 , 98 S.Ct. 157 , 54 L.Ed.2d 116 (1977). Courts using this approach hold that morning of trial requests are per se untimely. Hamiel v. State, 92 Wis.2d 656 , 285 N.W.2d 639, 649 (1979); Russell v. State, supra[,] 383 N.E.2d at 315 . Other courts are more lenient and allow consideration of requests that occur anytime before trial. Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578, 585 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); Chapman v. United States, 553 F.2d 886, 893 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Smith, 780 F.2d 810, 811 (9th Cir.1986); Fritz v. Spalding, 682 F.2d 782, 784 (9th Cir.1982). Morning of but prior to trial requests are timely under this approach. Blankenship v. State, supra, at 585; Fritz v. Spalding, supra [,] at 784. Under either analysis, a trial court will not grant a pro se request if the defendant’s purpose is to secure delay or tactic”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Artis
“For example, the defendant must voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. State v. Watson, 716 S.W.2d 398, 402 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Williams, 716 S.W.2d 452, 453 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Wells, 701 S.W.2d 554, 556 (Mo.App.1986). The request to proceed pro se must be unequivocal and timely made. May v. State, 718 S.W.2d 495, 497 (Mo.banc 1986); State v. Power, 721 S.W.2d 194, 195 (Mo.App.1986). If a request is untimely, then the court in its discretion may refuse to allow the defendant to proceed pro se. State v. Power, supra, at 195; Russell v. State, 270 Ind. 55 , 383 N.E.2d 309, 314 (1978); People v. Hamilton, 41 Cal.3d 408, 421 , 221 Cal.Rptr. 902, 909 , 710 P.2d 981, 988 (1985).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Artis

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.