James v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under art. I, sec. 21 of the Alaska Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a criminal defendant has the right to represent himself. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2535 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); McCracken v. State, 518 P.2d 85, 91 (Alaska 1974). However, courts have imposed protective restrictions on the exercise of that right because it involves a waiver of the fundamental right to counsel. A defendant must knowingly and intelligently give up the benefits of the right to counsel before being allowed to represent himself. Faretta [v. Cali fornia,] 422 U.S. [806] at 835, 95 S.Ct. [2525] at 2541 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) ]. “Although a defendant need not himself have the skill and experience of a lawyer in order competently and intelligently to choose self-representation, he should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation_” Id. The Alaska Supreme Court requires that the trial court first establish that the defendant can represent himself in a “rational and coherent manner” and then determine whether “the prisoner understands precisely what he is giving up by declining the assistance of counsel,” before allowing the defendant to appear pro se. McCracken, 518 P.2d at 91 . The trial judge must explain the advantages of legal representation in “some detail.” Id., at 92 . The record must reflect a clear waiver of the right to counsel. O’Dell v. Anchorage, 576 P.2d 104, 108 (Alaska 1978); Smith v. St”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Evans v. State

2. “Except in the most unusual circumstances, a trial in which one side is unrepresented by counsel is a farcical effort to ascertain guilt. Thus, once a defendant has clearly and unequivocally declared his or her intention to appear pro se, the trial judge must conduct a through inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the assertion _This inquiry should be incorporated into the trial record ... and should include: advising the defendant of the right to counsel and the importance of having counsel; warning the defendant 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’ and inquiring into the • defendant’s educational background, previous experience with criminal trials, and general competence .... [T]he defendant must possess the mental competence to understand the dangers and ramifications of self-representation.[ 5 ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gladden v. State