772 So. 2d 189 - State v. Haider’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Article 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the minutes of court to "show either that the defendant was represented by counsel or that he was informed by the court of the defendants' right to counsel, including the right to appointed counsel, and that he waived such right." In State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95); 664 So.2d 367, 372-373 , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated the following regarding a defendant's right to counsel: As correctly noted in Hattaway, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only after the commencement of adverse judicial criminal proceedings. In the plurality opinion of Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 , 92 S.Ct. 1877, 1882 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972), the Supreme Court held the right to counsel does not attach prior to the "initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings—whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment." * * * Even though the Sixth Amendment right to counsel may have attached, however, it does not exist to protect the defendant at all post-attachment proceedings. The right exists only during those post-attachment, pre-trial confrontations which can be considered "critical stages." In United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1931 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), the Court described a critical stage as a "critical pretrial confrontation[ ] where the results might well settle the accused's fate and reduce the trial to a mere formality." See also United State”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 982 So. 2d 119 - State v. Savoie

2. “Gerstein, 95 S.Ct. at 867 . The Court distinguished its prior decision in Coleman . The Court noted that a finding of no probable cause at the Alabama preliminary examination could mean the defendant would not be tried at all. On the other hand, Florida's Fourth Amendment probable cause determination affects the defendant's pretrial custody only. Secondly, the Gerstein court noted,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 982 So. 2d 119 - State v. Savoie

3. “Id. at 2003. The court then went on to discuss several ways in which counsel could protect a defendant's rights at a preliminary examination. Subsequently, in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 , 95 S.Ct. 854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), the Court addressed the issue of whether Florida's probable cause hearing was a critical stage in the proceedings. The Court found that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 982 So. 2d 119 - State v. Savoie