Johnstone v. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis
808 F.2d 214 · 1986
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably State v. Stenson (1997), United States v. Willie (1991)
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Faretta v. California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] request to proceed pro se is not equivocal because it is an alternative position, advanced as a fall-back to a primary request for different counsel.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“knowingly, voluntarily, and unequivocally”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the Constitution prohibits courts from requiring criminal defendants to be defended by counsel, it does not foreclose trial courts from using less overbearing means of ensuring that pro se defendants have adequate legal representation. In cases in which the trial judge fears that a pro se defendant lacks the ability to defend himself adequately, the judge can appoint counsel to assist the defendant in his pro se defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.