State v. Butterfield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A unifying characteristic of these rights [requiring a personal, knowing waiver by the defendant] appears to be that they are of central importance to the quality of the guilt-determining process and the defendant’s ability to participate in that process ____ We judge the right to a public trial to be of a different order. Certainly it is important in assuring that abuses by the state are not permitted to be hidden from public view____ On the other hand, the absence of the public in a particular case does not necessarily affect qualitatively the guilt-determining process or the defendant’s ability to participate in the process____Of course, it is possible that in a particular case the wrongful closure of a trial could have an adverse impact and that counsel would have failed to preserve an objection. However, the mere possibility of such an instance does not seem to warrant the imposition of a requirement of a personal waiver of the right to a public trial in all cases. Such possibilities are better dealt with via an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kevin Christian Overline · 827 So. 2d 269 - Alvarez v. State

2. “the failure of a defendant and his or her counsel to object to a closure order constitutes waiver of the defendant's right to a public trial under . .. the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution . . . .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ndina · 356 Wis. 2d 106 - State v. Pinno

3. “Various courts have addressed the issue of the effect a failure to object to a closure order has on the defendant's right to a public trial under the sixth amendment and analogous provisions in state constitutions. These courts have taken what can be characterized as three different approaches to resolving this issue. The first finds that the right to a public trial is not waived by a failure to object. See, e.g., State v. Hensley, 75 Ohio St. 255 , 266, 79 N.E. 462 , 462-64 (1906) (construing state constitution); State v. Marsh, 126 Wash. 142, 145-47 , 217 P. 705, 706 (1923) (construing state constitution). The second approach is that the right is waived by silence only if the failure to object represents an intentional and knowing act by the defendant. See Martineau v. Perrin, 601 F.2d 1196 (1st Cir.1979) (construing sixth amendment). The third approach, the apparent majority view, finds that the right is waived by silence. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Bruno v. Herald [Herold], 408 F.2d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir.) (construing sixth amendment), cert. denied sub nom. Bruno v. Herald [Herold], 397 U.S. 957 , 90 S.Ct. 947 , 25 L.Ed.2d 141 (1969) [ (1970)]; Geise v. United States, 265 F.2d 659, 660 (9th Cir.) (construing sixth amendment), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 842 , 80 S.Ct. 94 , 4 L.Ed.2d 80 (1959); People v. Cash, 52 Cal.2d 841, 843 , 345 P.2d 462, 465 (1959) (construing state constitution).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 827 So. 2d 269 - Alvarez v. State